[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1145-H1179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 652, TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 353 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 353

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 652) to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory 
     national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly 
     private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and 
     information technologies and services to all Americans by 
     opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.)
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 353 provides for the 
consideration of the conference report for S. 652, the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, and waives all points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration. The House rules 
allow for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Commerce and Judiciary 
Committees.

  In addition, the regular rules of the House provide for a motion to 
recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a complex piece of legislation 
that is the product of many long months of negotiation. I believe that 
the conferees have worked in good faith to create a balanced bill which 
equalizes the diverse competitive forces in the telecommunications 
industry.
  This entire process has involved countless competing interests which 
include consumers long distance companies, regional Bell operating 
companies, cable, newspapers, broadcasters, 

[[Page H1146]]
and high-technology firms, to name only a few. We are opening up 
competition to those who have been protected for a very long time, and 
all of the players are anxious to gain an edge on their new 
competitors. I am absolutely confident that the legislation before us 
today will produce competition that will be good for all Americans.
  I want to commend the tireless work of Chairmen Tom Bliley, Jack 
Fields, and Henry Hyde, and ranking members John Dingell, Ed Markey, 
and John Conyers. Their handling of this long and difficult conference 
will ensure that the United States maintains the lead on the 
information superhighway as we move into the 21st century.
  We have before us a bill that has undergone a great deal of revision 
and assembly in order to reach this point. In the past, 
telecommunications reform has fallen victim to one problem or another, 
from legislative resistance to the opposition of various powerful 
interests. Today, we have a good bipartisan bill, which has endured a 
rigorous process. It is a tribute to this process that this bill has 
broad support from consumers, industry, the U.S. Congress, and the 
White House.
  The goal of our telecommunications reform legislation is to encourage 
competition that will produce innovative technologies for every 
American household and provide benefits to the American consumer in the 
form of lower prices and enhanced services. This legislation will 
achieve this goal.
  Existing companies and companies that currently exist only in the 
minds of innovative dreamers will take advantage of this new 
competitive landscape and bring new products and a new way of life that 
will amaze every American.
  Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft Corporation, envisions an 
information revolution that will take place in the world communications 
marketplace. While he has expressed his frustration that the sweeping 
advancement in technology would not come for about a decade, we have 
the opportunity today to speed the advance of this technological and 
information revolution. We have the ability to set the pace by passing 
momentous legislation that will bring immeasurable technological 
advancements to every American family.

  The massive barriers to competition and the restrictions that were 
necessary not long ago to protect segments of the U.S. economy have 
served their purpose. We have achieved great advances and lead the 
world in telecommunications services. However, productive societies 
strengthen and nourish the spirit of innovation and competition, and I 
believe that S. 652 will provide Americans with more choices in new 
products and result in tremendous benefits to all consumers.
  This legislation will be remembered as the most deregulatory 
telecommunications legislation in history. The philosophy of this 
Congress--and our Nation in general--is to encourage competition in 
order to provide more efficient service and superior products to the 
American consumer. This bill will strip away antiquated laws, create 
more choices, and lower prices for consumers and enable companies to 
compete in the new telecommunications marketplace.
  This resolution was favorably reported out of the Rules Committee 
yesterday, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
complete consideration on this historic legislation. I strongly support 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which will assure America's role as 
the high-technology leader and innovator for the next century, and I am 
absolutely certain that this will be the best job-creating legislation 
that I will see in my years in this House.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some legitimate concerns about this rule for 
the consideration of the conference report for this landmark 
deregulatory telecommunications legislation, made all the more 
relevant, I think, by the fact that on what apparently will be the last 
day in which we shall be in session for almost 4 weeks, the principal 
responsibility for all of us should not be the hurried passage of this 
particular piece of legislation, which has been in conference now for 
several months, but rather passage of a clean debt ceiling resolution 
that would assure our citizens and the world that the U.S. Government 
will not default on its financial obligations.
  Beyond that, there is no compelling reason or legitimate need, so far 
as this legislation is concerned, to waive the standing rule of the 
House that gives Members 3 days to examine a conference report before 
being required to vote on it. That is an important rule. It exists for 
the protection of Members of Congress and for the protection of the 
people we represent, to afford us all an opportunity to study and to 
review and to understand the legislation on which we are going to be 
asked to vote.
  The importance of that rule, Mr. Speaker, is particularly relevant in 
a situation such as this when we are, as the gentleman from Georgia has 
pointed out, debating landmark legislation which completely rewrites 
our existing communications law that regulates industries worth nearly 
$1 trillion. Because this rule waives a reasonable and important time 
requirement, Members could be approving provisions that are not fully 
understood and that could have repercussions that no one has had the 
opportunity or the time to think carefully about, or think so carefully 
about as necessary.
  We are concerned, too, about statements that indicate that there are 
plans to complete this conference report and have it signed into law, 
and then later on consider legislation later this year that will undo 
some of the agreements we are rushing through today.
  In sum, it would have been much preferable if Members had been given 
the 3 days required by the rules of the House before being asked to 
vote on a conference report as complicated as this one, with its 
enormous economic, political and cultural consequences for the public 
and for businesses and for the Nation in general.
  Several very major decisions have been made by the conferees, 
including those dealing with the relaxation of restrictions on 
ownership of radio and TV stations, with restrictions on Internet 
communications, and with the unfunded mandates issue that city 
governments in particular have expressed some concerns about.
  In addition, the legislation basically unravels the protections that 
cable consumers currently enjoy. It terminates regulation of rates for 
non-basic cable services for all cable systems no later than 1999, and 
immediately for most small cable systems. That obviously is a very 
significant issue, dealing as it does with an industry that affects the 
great majority of the Americans whom we are elected to represent.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most worrisome part of the legislation is 
its treatment of media ownership and its promotion of mergers and 
concentration of power. The bill would change current law to permit a 
single company to own television stations reaching 35 percent of the 
nationwide audience, an increase from the current level of 25 percent.
  Nationwide ownership limits in radio would be eliminated altogether, 
while a single company could own numerous radio stations in a single 
market. Newspapers could own radio and, in some cases, television 
stations in their own communities; local telephone companies could own 
television and radio stations in their own service areas.
  These proposals pose a serious threat to the principles of broadcast 
diversity and localism. They threaten the ability of a community to 
have more than one source of news and entertainment.
  The conference agreement does contain some provisions that enjoy 
widespread support, including one that gives parents the ability to 
block television shows that young children, they believe, should not be 
watching. That is an important issue. Conferees, most of us think, 
should be strongly commended for their support of this language.
  We all recognize, Mr. Speaker, the need to make changes in our 60-
year-old communications law, but we are still concerned, as I said at 
the outset, about the process under which the bill is being considered.
  Obviously the needs and the rights of the American public should be 
the primary concern of this legislation. Many 

[[Page H1147]]
of us had hoped that the final version would better balance the 
introduction of competitive markets with measures designed to protect 
the public. I do hope that we do not discover later that we have lost 
sight of the public in this process and of the need to protect the 
public from potential monopoly abuses.
  Mr. Speaker, in sum, this is a very complex and far-reaching piece of 
legislation. I am sorry only that we are being forced to consider it in 
a rather hurried fashion today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time 
and congratulate him on his fine work on this effort.
  This is obviously a great day. It has been decades in the making. As 
we all know, it has been over six decades since we have been able to 
deal as comprehensively with this issue. But I would like to make just 
a few points as we move ahead.
  First and foremost, the success of this conference demonstrates that 
in a bipartisan way there is an understanding that competition works. 
It clearly creates a great opportunity to create jobs, creates an 
opportunity to benefit the consumer, which is what we want to do. We 
want to provide the widest range of choices, and that is exactly what 
is going to happen here.
  We have learned from the fall of the former Soviet Union that 
regulated monopolies do not work, whether it is in business, whether it 
is even in public education. We have found that they do not work, and I 
think that the realization that we are going to finally bring 
telecommunications law up to the market is, I think, something that is 
very, very important.
  The second point that I would like to make is that the success of 
this conference is due in large part to the reforms that were put into 
place at the beginning of the 104th Congress. We know that, as we have 
looked at the many people who have been involved in this, that if we 
had been living with the older system that we had, which is, I know, 
inside baseball here to talk about this, but the referral process for 
legislation was one which played a role, I believe, in jeopardizing 
success in the past. The change that we made at the beginning of this 
Congress, I believe, went a long way toward dealing with that.
  The other thing that was very important was that we overhauled 
committee jurisdictions at the beginning of this Congress, and we have 
had some marvelous success in that overhaul, which I believe has gone a 
long way toward benefiting the legislative process.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing, the State of California is 
pivotal to the success of this, too. California is providing the 
hardware and the software that is going to allow us to move into the 
21st century, and this legislation will be key. We in California have 
what is known as the Silicon Valley where the hardware is going to be 
emanating from and Hollywood where the software will be emanating from, 
so our State is on the cutting edge, and it will go a long way toward 
creating jobs and opportunity.
  I urge support of this very balanced rule, and I urge support of the 
conference report.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the 
time, because I would like the attention of my good friend from 
California.
  He speaks with great enthusiasm on the subject of reforms. I would 
remind the gentleman that last year or, rather, the year before last 
under the old rules, this body got from our Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, in agreement with the Committee on Judiciary, a bill which 
did substantially the same thing that this bill does right here. I 
would remind him that the matter was handled expeditiously and 
splendidly; that the delay occurred not here but in the Senate.
  If the gentleman wishes, I will be delighted to inform him as to why 
the delay occurred and why that bill never passed the Senate. But I do 
not think the gentleman has any reason to discuss the failure of the 
old rules or the success of the new rules on the basis of this.
  We gave this House a bill which does substantially the same thing. It 
was almost identical in language, in intent, and in substance to that 
which we have before us at this particular time, and I hope my good 
friend, for whom I have enormous respect and affection, will now be 
absolved of his very unfortunate error on this.
  Since I have mentioned him I will be delighted to yield to him.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply say that 
it is true that we were able to move legislation. But I believe very 
sincerely that the reforms that we put into place as it came to 
jurisdiction and also the referral process has helped us move more 
expeditiously with this legislation in the 104th Congress. And I 
believe, also looking at the issue of unfunded mandates and reform of 
unfunded mandates, that was another very important reform which allowed 
us to deal with this.
  Mr. DINGELL. Reclaiming my time, again with great affection for the 
gentleman, it would serve him and this body well if he were to seek 
more suitable subjects for making a claim that reform has accomplished 
anything of merit.
  I would conclude by making the observation that this is a good bill. 
I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey], and the members of the committee.
  Last year, I would remind my dear friend from California, we got 423 
votes. I hope we will do as well today. Four hundred twenty-three is a 
large number of votes.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, the rule we have before us this afternoon and 
soon the bill itself that will follow has to do with changing law, and 
changing law that has affected the communications industry since the 
1930's, but it is not just about changing law. It is also, I think, in 
many ways about fundamentally changing a mind-set, because for nearly 
60 years in this country we have run communications based on a 
philosophy which said the bureaucracy, that the Government set prices, 
that the Government restricted access and restricted competition, and 
fundamentally it was the Government picking winners and defining 
losers.
  This bill and this rule that precedes the bill will usher in a new 
era of competition where the market instead will pick winners and 
losers, and ultimately the major winner in all of this will be 
consumers. It is the way that consumers won when we deregulated the 
airline industry in 1978, and it is the way that consumers won when we 
deregulated the trucking industry back in 1980. Those changes have 
resulted in savings of hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy.

                              {time}  1330

  Obviously it helped the economy grow; this bill, at its roots, is in 
many ways a jobs bill as well, because it is a jobs bill based 
fundamentally on innovation and on new products.
  This bill is also about choice. It used to be we only had one long-
distance phone company in this country. Today there are thousands of 
them. Soon consumers will also have choices about local telephone 
service, about cellular, and if you hate your local cable company, you 
will have other cable companies to pick from, and you will have more 
options in broadcasting, more options in satellites.
  All of those choices will be based on price, on service, and on 
performance and not ultimately on Government regulation.
  I would like to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for his terrific work, and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] for his terrific work as well, and 
also congratulate my fellow conferees. It is time to end 60 years of 
Government control, Mr. Speaker. It is time to vote for this rule and 
trust consumers and the markets to make decisions and no longer trust 
Government regulators.

[[Page H1148]]

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I must say if this bill is being brought to the floor under sunshine 
and happiness, I am not happy. I think this rule should be defeated. I 
think it is outrageous this rule is waiving the 3 days so that we can 
look at it.
  I was on the conference committee, and at 7:40 a.m. this morning was 
the first time I got the full bill. Let me show you what was attached 
to it. These are the proposed technical corrections. This is page 1, 
this is page 2, this is page 3, this is page 4, this is page 5, and 
this is page 6. We have six little pages of technical corrections.
  Now maybe the rest of you are quicker than I am, but we have been 
trying desperately to go through all of this and figure out what these 
six pages of technical corrections are really going to do to this bill, 
and because we do not have 3 days, we have until probably about an hour 
and a half from now, that is it, and I think when you are talking about 
a seventh of the economy, when you are talking about something that is 
trillions of dollars, and I come from a district that is very impacted 
by this, because we have regional Bells, we have long-distance 
companies, we have got cable companies, we have got all of that. We 
would like to know what this means, and the idea of ``trust us, hurry 
out and vote,'' I think is wrong.

  I mean, I figure I am getting my pay, and I am getting paid to be 
here, and to be here and study this, and I would hope that we know what 
is in it before we vote for it.
  For all of those who think they know all of this and this is fine and 
this is terrific, let me tell you about one of the things that we 
stumbled over as we looked at this page upon page of corrections and 
stuff. We came across section 1462, which I think very few people know 
is even in this bill. What it says is absolutely devasting to women. 
What we are going to do is put on a high-technology gag rule with 
criminal penalties. Have a nice day.
  Yes, let me read what this brings into the law through one of these 
little things. It says that any drug, medicine, article, or thing 
designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion or for any 
indecent or immoral use or for any written or printed card, letter, 
circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of those giving any 
kind of information directly or indirectly, no matter what it means, 
this is going to be deemed a Federal penalty, a Federal crime, if you 
transmit any of this over the Internet. Now, this is a gag rule that is 
off the charts.
  One of the major things people wanted to use Internets for was 
telemedicine. Does that mean anything dealing with women's reproductive 
parts they cannot do this? There will be people standing up and saying, 
``Oh, Schroeder, cool off, that will never be considered 
constitutional.'' Well, if we are going to vote for things we think are 
not constitutional and we are going to do it in this fast a pace, we 
ought to give at least part of our salary to the judges. We are just 
going to mess everything up over here and send it over to them. I do 
not think so.
  Let me tell you what lawyers tell me. Lawyers tell me do not be so 
quick about saying this is not constitutional; there was a pre-1972 
case that upheld the constitutionality of this. And, second, we are 
talking about an international Internet. That is what our companies 
want to get on. And we have now seen one case with Germany talking 
about standards and what they want, and this, I think, would only give 
some international gravitas to limiting what you can say about women's 
reproductive health in and around the Internet no matter which side of 
this issue you were on.
  I just think, why can we not have a little technical amendment 
correcting this? I think you are going to hear all sorts of people say 
we did not intend that, we did not mean it, let us have a colloquy, oh, 
let us, oh, let us, oh let us. Why can we not fix this? Why are not 
women in the world important enough if you can have six pages of 
technical corrections for every other thing you can possibly think of, 
some megacorporation wants? Why can we not take a deep breath and do 
this? Does that mean somebody's golf schedule in Florida is going to 
get upset? I do not know.
  I must say I am very saddened we are coming to the floor with this 
rule saying we have to waive the 3-day proposal where we have time to 
read this and digest this, because I really do not think anybody here 
could pass a test. I really do not.
  I was on the conference committee. Let me tell my colleagues, those 
conference committees were absolutely nonsubstantive. We would all 
gather in a room, best dressed, the TV camera from C-SPAN II would pan 
us, that would be the end of it.
  I really hope people vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder], I just cannot resist to use your own words, ``Oh, 
Mrs. Schroeder, cool off.'' Those are your words.
  You and I were both in the conference committee together. You and I 
were both there; we voted on the Internet legislation together; and, in 
fact, I think we voted the same way.
  What we have here in this bill is satisfactory. In fact, it is 
superior, and it is something that we all voted together, both 
Democrats and Republicans.
  So I am not clear if I understand your argument.
  Let me just continue with what I was going to say. This follows up my 
good friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], when he talked 
about Bill Gates, the founder and CEO of Microsoft. This is what he 
said, my friends: ``We are beginning another great journey; we aren't 
sure where this one will lead us either, but again I am certain this 
revolution will touch even more lives. The major changes coming will be 
in the way people communicate with each other. The benefits arising 
from this opportunity and this revolution will be greater, greater than 
brought by the PC revolution. We are on the verge of a bold new era of 
communications.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so that this body 
may have the unique chance to ensure this country's ability to realize 
the great potential of the dynamic communications revolution that Mr. 
Gates speaks about. Today we have this opportunity, because the 
Republican majority has brought forth a bill that is important not only 
for the industry but for this country.
  Mr. Gates is right when he says this revolution will touch even more 
lives in addition to creating new jobs in the communications industry. 
It will have a dramatic impact on consumers. It will bring about 
benefits of greater choice, of new and exciting communications services 
with lower prices and even higher quality. Americans will have greater 
access to information and education than ever before.
  Clearly the consumer will be the winner.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule on this legislation that 
will take the American consumers and customers further than they ever 
imagined.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this is an enormous bill in its scope and 
the effort that went into it and the number of years that were spent 
putting this together.
  Certainly there are parts of this legislation that I do not agree 
with. But in general, I think what has been put together here is 
positive.
  We live in a new world, and if we are going to make the technological 
changes that work for families, our laws have to keep pace with the 
changing times that we are in. We cannot move into a computer age with 
laws that were written for the radio age.
  I believe this bill will help bring us into the 21st century in a way 
that will not only create jobs but make us more efficient as a country 
in this ever challenging global economy that we now are in.
  Beyond that, this bill gives parents, and I would like to focus 
attention for one second on this question of giving 

[[Page H1149]]
parents more control over the sex and the violence that is coming into 
our homes today. Most of the kids in our society will see 8,000 murders 
and over 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time they finish 
grade school. That is appalling. We need to do more to help those 
parents who do take responsibility for their kids.
  Now, the V-chip, that is something that is part of this package. It 
was the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and others who have been active on this 
issue. We have got that in here. The V-chip included in this bill will 
help parents let in Sesame Street and keep out programs like the Texas 
Chainsaw Massacre.
  Mr. Speaker, it is parents who raise children, not government, not 
advertisers, not network executives, and parents who should be the ones 
who choose what kind of shows come into their homes for their kids.
  It was a little more than a week ago when the President of the United 
States stood directly in back of me and spoke to the Nation, and the 
most memorable words from my standpoint in that speech were parents 
have the responsibility and the duty to raise their children. This bill 
will help immeasurably in that direction, so I urge my colleagues to be 
supportive of the conference report when it comes before us in the next 
few minutes.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of the subcommittee 
that produced this bill.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, very seldom, if ever, in a 
legislative career, can we as legislators, can we as trustees for the 
American people, feel that we have made a significant contribution for 
the country's future--made a real difference. Well, today we can.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a watershed moment--a day of history--and, not 
just because this is the first comprehensive reform of 
telecommunication policy in 62 years--not just because we have been 
able to accomplish what has eluded previous Congresses--which, in and 
of itself, is of particular pride to me and my fellow subcommittee 
members, on both sides of the aisle, because we have all worked many 
long hours to get to this watershed moment.
  No, Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment because we are decompart 
mentalizing segments of the telecommunications industry, opening the 
floodgates of competition through deregulation, and most importantly, 
giving consumers choice--in their basic telephone service, their basic 
cable service, and new broadcasting services as we begin the transition 
to digital and the age of compression--and from these choices, the 
benefits of competition flow to all of us as consumers--new and better 
technologies, new applications for existing technologies, and most 
importantly, to all of us, because of competition, lower consumer 
price.
  For the last 3\1/2\ years this telecommunication reform package has 
been my life--I have lived with it, eaten with it, and not to sound 
weird, even dreamed of telecommunication reform while I'm asleep--so, 
believe me when I say that I am glad that we are bringing this 
important issue to closure. In fact, this closure reminds me of my 
newest daughter, Emily, born 14 days ago--the labor has been long, 
we've been through some painful contractions, but at the birth of 
something so magnificent, you're a proud father--and today, I am one of 
many proud fathers.

                              {time}  1345

  And, just as I cannot predict what Emily will be like as she grows 
up, few of us really understand what we are unleashing today. In my 
opinion, today is the dawn of the information age. This day will be 
remembered as the day that America began a new course--and none of us 
fully appreciate what we are unleashing. I do know that this is the 
greatest jobs bill passed during my service in Congress. I really 
believe that because of the opportunities afforded because of 
deregulation that there will be more technology developed and deployed 
between now and the year 2000 than we have seen this century. I believe 
that this legislation guarantees that American companies will dominate 
the global landscape in the field of telecommunication.
  And, if asked what I am most proud of in this legislation--besides 
the fact that my subcommittee members on my side of the aisle have 
worked as a team in developing this legislation--is the approach that 
we initiated in January 1995, when we as Republicans assumed leadership 
on this issue and invited the leading CEO's of America's 
telecommunication companies to come and answer one question. That one 
question was, What should we do as the new majority in this dynamic age 
of telechnology to enhance competition and consumer choice? The 
telephone CEO's said that they didn't mind opening the local loop if 
they could compete for the long distance business that was denied to 
them by judicial and legislative decision. The long distance CEO's said 
that they didn't mind the Bell's competing for the long distance 
business if the local loop was truly open to competition and if they 
could compete for the intraLATA toll business which was denied to them. 
And, the biggest surprise to us was when Brian Roberts of Comcast Cable 
on behalf of the cable industry said that they wanted to be the 
competitors of the telephone companies in the residential marketplace. 
In fact, the next day, I called Brian and Jerry Levin of Time-Warner to 
have them reassure me that their intent was to be major players and 
competitors in the residential marketplace. After that discussion, I 
told my staff that we needed a checklist that would decompartmentalize 
cable and competition in a verifiable manner and move the deregulated 
framework even faster than ever imagined. And we came up with the 
concept of a facilities based competitor who was intended to negotiate 
the loop for all within a State and it has always been within our 
anticipation that a cable company would in most instances and in all 
likelihood be that facilities-based competitor in most States--even 
though our concept definition is more flexible and encompassing. It is 
this checklist which will be responsible for much of the new 
technologies, the major investments that will be flowing, and the tens 
of thousands that will be created because of this legislation.

  And, in talking about opening the loop, I don't want to take away the 
other deregulatory aspects of our legislation such as the more 
deregulatory environment for the cable industry as they prepare to go 
head-to-head with the telephone companies. The streamlining of the 
license procedures for the broadcasting industry and the loosening of 
the ownership restrictions.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on and be excited about what 
this bill means to Americans, to our consumers.
  Let me just end at this particular time in saying once again, I am a 
proud father, along with many others. There are many who have brought 
this day to us. It is a watershed moment, a historic moment, and it is 
a day that all of us can be extremely proud of.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker, we are not sure what 
we are unleashing here. But I am rising in objection today to at least 
another measure to restrict women's constitutional rights that has 
appeared in this bill. I am referring to section 507 of the 
Communications Act of 1995 that would prohibit the exchange of 
information regarding abortion over the Internet. I ask you, is the 
abortion issue going to be attached and is it at all germane to this 
bill?
  This is the 22d vote of the 104th Congress on abortion-related 
legislation that has whittled away at the constitutional and legal 
rights of American women. Today we have the opportunity to pass a 
widely supported bipartisan telecommunications bill. Instead of 
focusing on the important issues at hand, we are being forced again for 
the 22d time during Congress to vote on a measure to further reduce 
women's constitutional rights.
  Abortion is a legal procedure. To prohibit discussion of it on the 
Internet is 

[[Page H1150]]
clearly a violation of first amendment rights.
  The penalties involved are severe. If an unknowing person were to 
even bring up the topic on the Internet, the penalty would be 5 years 
imprisonment; 10 years for a second or subsequent charge, even for the 
mention of the word.
  I want the American people to know that this Congress has 
systematically whittled away at a woman's right to choose to such a 
degree it has been virtually destroyed. If it is to be Federal policy 
that every conception will result in birth, then the Federal Government 
must also assume responsibility for children. We must assume the 
responsibility to provide for the emotional, the educational needs, and 
the financial well-being of every child.
  This Congress has expressed no interest in assuming responsibility 
for children. Instead, measures have been proposed and many have passed 
that further rescind the current limited Federal obligations to the 
children of the United States. There have been drastic cuts to the 
earned income tax credit for working parents with children, to Head 
Start, to nutrition, and to health programs. These are the very 
programs that address the needs of the poor and disadvantaged children.
  The implication in this Congress is that once a child is born, we 
really do not care what happens to it. That child may starve, may be 
abused, or even be beaten to death, and, in the case of the Northeast, 
may freeze to death because hearing assistance for the poor has now 
been taken away. The only thing that matters is that the child be born. 
After that, it is somebody else's problem.
  This prohibition to rights of privacy and to the first amendment 
rights does not belong in this bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Georgia for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I think it is an 
appropriate rule that finally takes this piece of legislation which has 
been moving up and down the field now, lo these many years, and finally 
pushes it over the goal line. I think we have come to that point.
  I would like to extend my congratulations to all those involved on 
the primary committee and all the other committees that looked at it, 
but particularly the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. This has truly 
been a remarkable product.
  This is a bill that is good for all, long distance, regional, new 
technology, broadcasters, cable, but consumers as well. Consumers, 
Americans, the people we work for, are going to benefit from this.
  Yes, there are still some problems out there with local government on 
revenue and zoning issues. We have assurances they are worked out, and, 
if they are not, then we can deal with them. Areas of duopoly, the 
question of free press and diversity of opinion, which are essential to 
our democracy, these are areas that may need further attention, and we 
have been promised we will get them if necessary. This is a big, 
important positive step we are taking, and I urge support.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me this time 
and I urge support of this rule. As has been explained this is a 
standard rule providing for consideration of a very complex conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, this telecommunications bill is a remarkable piece of 
legislation in its overall effect. I commend everyone who has worked so 
hard to create a fair, bipartisan bill--wading through some of the most 
complicated and controversial issues of our day. According to Chairman 
Bliley, who worked tirelessly on this project, we have arrived at a 
compromise that will open the communications industry to real 
competition and reduce Federal involvement in decisions that are best 
made by the free market.
  As America enters the 21st century, telecommunications will be at the 
forefront of our continuing economic development. Congress simply 
cannot keep up with the development and innovation that are propelling 
us into the information age of the 21st century. For too long we have 
been constrained by the foundations built by policies written more than 
60 years ago, long before cable television and cellular phones became 
reality.
  With a bill this monumental, differences of opinion will inevitably 
continue to exist--and the chairman himself has underscored that this 
is not a perfect product. I am pleased, however, that during conference 
the rights-of-way and zoning issues were adequately resolved. As I 
understand it, localities will maintain their ability to control the 
public rights-of-way and to receive fair compensation for its use. 
Federal interference is unnecessary, as long as localities do not 
discriminate. I think that is fair.
  One remaining concern I have is with restrictions on ownership of 
television stations. Diversity of opinion--and a truly free press--are 
hallmarks of American society.
  In our rules meeting last night, the chairman said that, although the 
House provision on dupolies--dual ownership of stations in a single 
market--was not included, guidelines for the FCC in handling such cases 
were. He assured me that he would look further into the matter of small 
television markets like those in my district in southwest Florida, 
where the rules on dual ownership may have unintended negative 
consequences.
  Mr. Speaker, these are relatively small issues given the entire scope 
of S. 652 and I am hopeful the bill will be signed into law. I 
understand from Chairman Bliley that necessary technical corrections 
and clarifications will be taken care of in the future and I look 
forward to addressing these final concerns when we work on the fine-
tuning of this historic bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule. One, the need to dispense 
with the normal procedures is another example of rewarding one's own 
incompetence. The bill should have come out in time. The notion that we 
are ready to leave cuts no ice, because there is no reason why the bill 
could not have been out before.
  But I also have serious substantive problems with the bill. Indeed, I 
have always believed that self-denial was an important thing for 
leaders to show. But I think my Republican friends have gotten 
confused. Instead of self-denial, they have used this bill for self-
repudiation.
  First we have the Speaker of the House who talked very loudly about 
how he was opposed to censorship. He was going to keep our electronic 
communications free of censorship. Despite that, we now have a bill 
which is heavily weighted with censorship. We have a bill which will 
interfere with free expression through the Internet and elsewhere.
  But there is another example of self-repudiation that troubles me 
deeply, and that is the decision by the majority leader of the Senate 
to abandon his very brief crusade on behalf of the taxpayers. I was 
very pleased when Senator Dole spoke out against a giveaway of access 
to the spectrum on the part of the Government to broadcasters, and I 
was briefly with the Senator. But I made the mistake of, I do not know, 
going to lunch. When I came back from lunch, I was alone on the 
battlefield, at least as far as the Senator is concerned.
  This is a Congress that has been making severe cuts in programs that 
deal with the economic needs of some of the poorest people in this 
society, and we have been told that we must rely more on free 
enterprise, less on Government entities and Government regulation, and 
people must be on their own. But It now turns out they forgot to say, 
those who said that, that they are for free enterprise for the poor and 
free enterprise for the workers.
  But when it comes to wealthy interests in this society, free 
enterprise is apparently a very scary thing. Because the broadcasters, 
among the wealthiest people in society with the largest concentrations 
of wealth, are to get for free access to the spectrum.
  I know there is going to be language and people have written letters 
which in effect say we are passing a bill that says one thing, but 
please let us pretend that what we say, we did not really say. I 
believe that the Senate majority leader was right to criticize the 
giveaway of access to the spectrum, and I think it is wrong to drop 
that out.
  I should note parenthetically we are apparently about to do the same 
thing 

[[Page H1151]]
with agriculture. Free enterprise for the poor, no subsidies there, no 
regulation when we are talking about the environment. But when we are 
talking about growing peanuts or sugar, oh, well, wait a minute, free 
enterprise was not meant for that.
  I hope this rule is defeated and taxpayers interests are vindicated 
in the protection of the spectrum.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to observe that I am troubled deeply 
that the gentleman from Massachusetts is deeply troubled, and I shall 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I would like to begin by complementing the gentleman from Louisiana, 
Jack Fields, and the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Bliley, and all of 
the Republicans that worked on this bill for so long. They conducted 
the process in a bipartisan fashion. It is to their credit.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell and so 
many of the Democrats on our side who have worked on this bill for so 
long, 4 years, 4 long years. A similar bill passed near unanimously in 
1994. The gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, in fact came to the 
well and called it the model of bipartisan legislation in 1994. In the 
Senate that year, unfortunately, it kind of died in the final 3 or 4 
weeks. But it was revived in January of last year, and, working 
together in that spirit of bipartisanship, the bill was brought back 
out here on the floor again today.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the way in which 
the gentleman from Texas, Jack Fields, at the subcommittee level, 
especially for me, comported himself, and worked to make sure that this 
bill would be done in away that dealt with the ideas that had to be 
dealt with.
  This bill is critically important, because it unleashes a digital 
free-for-all. We take down the barriers of local and long distance and 
cable company, satellite, computer, software entry into any business 
they want to get in. Once and for all, all regulations are taken down.
  The premises are the same as they were in the bill a couple of years 
ago: More jobs and more choices. Now, there is a kind of paradox, 
because the larger companies are going to have to lay off people in 
many instance in order to remain competitive with the thousands of 
companies who are going to be creating new jobs on this information 
superhighway, with the net result of many tens and hundreds of 
thousands of new jobs, far more than have ever existed in this area of 
the American economy.

                              {time}  1400

  For me, that premise of competition has always been the preferred 
mode that we should use in order to accomplish this revolution in our 
society.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill contains many very important provisions. It 
contains a V-chip that will allow parents to be able to protect their 
children against the 500 channels, which is, by the way, only shorthand 
for infinity, because that is how many channels will be coming into 
people's homes. They are going to need an effective way of blocking out 
programs which are offensive to their families.
  It also preserves the concepts of localism and diversity which are so 
critical in our telecommunications marketplace so that we will have 
many voices in each marketplace.
  It also will ensure learning links built into each classroom, K 
through 12, through preferential rates which is going to be absolutely 
essential in the post-GATT, post NAFTA world. As we let the low-end 
jobs go in our society, we have to make sure that every child K through 
12 is given the skills that they are going to need in order to compete 
for these high-skilled jobs that otherwise will go to any other place 
in the world that is providing their workers with those skills. It also 
expands very important privacy protections to individuals in their 
relationships with these very large companies.
  People will be able to go to a Radio Shack and be able to purchase 
their own set-top box. They will be able to purchase their own 
converter box, their own modem. They will be able to purchase any 
product which is accessible to this information superhighway. It 
offers, in other words, real competition in the consumer electronics 
marketplace as well.
  We have come a long way in the last 15 years in this country. Back 
then we had one big telephone company. We had three television stations 
in most communities in the country. Today we have faxes. We have 
digital satellites. We have personal computers. We have cellular 
phones. We have brought this country into the Information Age. As the 
gentleman from Texas said, we now unleash this new revolution, for 15 
years and beyond, in terms of massive changes that are unimaginable, 
but will be the product of competition.
  The worldwide web was unimaginable 15 years ago, and today it is the 
coin of the realm in the marketplace. It was Government funded and 
created, but nonetheless it has been transmogrified into a private 
sector wonder. So we are all going digital. Life will never be the 
same. This bill helps to speed up that process ever further.
  So in conclusion, again, I cannot compliment the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] enough for his leadership, for his vision on 
this bill. I cannot thank enough the gentleman from Virginia, as well, 
for the way in which this process has been guided and especially to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. I want to 
compliment him for the gentlemanly way that he treated all of us 
throughout this process. He has been a good friend to all of us and 
ultimately to the consumer of this country by the competition that is 
unleashed in this bill. I hope that everyone supports this rule and 
ultimately supports the bill when it comes to the floor in final 
passage.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], a member of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, several years ago in this House we debated a 
thing called program access in connection with the cable industry. It 
was a grand debate. It produced an override of a veto on that cable 
bill that year. But more importantly, what it produced for America was 
competition in the cable industry.
  It produced for America the direct broadcast television system [DBS] 
that is now providing cable programming to millions of Americans who 
did not live within reach of a cable system. It is providing 
competition in cable prices and cable programming to millions of 
Americans who were limited before the advent of [DBS] to buying their 
programming from a single monopoly supplier. We celebrated then a small 
victory for competition and for consumers.
  Has it worked? It has worked marvelously. There is finally real 
competition in cable programming. Consumers enjoy more choices. There 
are better products and better prices. We have just begun to see the 
benefits of that competition today. Today is a grand celebration of 
that notion of competition. Today, in a bipartisan way, we unleash the 
spirit of competition in all forms of telecommunications services, from 
telephones to computers, to services dealing with video programming, 
and data services to interexchange services that are going to link us 
as Americans together as one like never before and give us access to 
the world and the world access to us as never before.
  This is a grand celebration of a free market system, of competition, 
and of Americans in their government trusting Americans in the 
marketplace to make the right decisions for themselves.
  It is a grand strategy to unleash the technologies that geniuses are 
working on in labs across America and give them a chance to become 
tomorrow's Microsoft.
  Second, it is our opportunity to take these decisions away from a 
judge who has been making telecommunications policy for America and to 
return those decisions to the people's House, the Congress of the 
United States of America.
  Finally, this bill predicts between 1.5 million and 3.5 million new 
jobs for Americans without us having to tax and spend one dime to get 
this economy going. This bill unleashes new jobs and new job 
opportunities the likes of which this Congress has rarely had a 

[[Page H1152]]
chance to do. Imagine: 1.5 million to 3.5 million new families earning 
money instead of being dependent upon somebody else. That is what this 
bill promises for us, a little promise that we ought to keep on this 
House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], the former chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley], our chairman, and particularly the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields] for the extraordinary work he has done. Let us celebrate their 
hard work, and let us celebrate the spirit of America, a free-market 
system and competition. Let us vote this good bill out today.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for supporting my discussion 
last night in the Committee on Rules, when the Congress had finished 
its work, when we found out that this conference report would be 
brought forward today in less than 24 hours, violating the most time-
honored rule in the procedures of bringing legislation to this House.
  The same rule that Speaker Gingrich has spoken with great passion 
about; the same rule that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, has preached to me about across the 
years, this rule is now being violated for reasons that I cannot 
fathom.
  Let me make it clear that this is the most important 111 pages in a 
conference report in terms of economic consideration that my colleagues 
will ever in their careers deal with. The fact of the matter is that 
there are very few, if any, persons that have read, not to mention 
understand, what is in the report. That is why we have a 3-day rule 
layover.
  Now, in all fairness, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley] because he has cooperated with me throughout this process 
as a conferee. In all fairness, I want to commend the dean of the 
House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who has not only 
afforded me every courtesy but has allowed me to have 20 minutes in the 
debate that will shortly follow.
  But ask this question, as I urge my colleagues to return this rule to 
the committee: Who knew that that noxious abortion portion was in the 
conference report? Nobody, until it was found out about last night. Who 
knows many of the other provisions, I have a whole list of them here, 
that could not possibly be known about, much less understood in terms 
of their implications?
  The reason that we honor the 3-day rule is simply because there are 
no amendments possible on a conference report. We can only vote it up 
or down. We should have a 3-week delay on this measure, since we are 
going out this afternoon. So 3 days would be a very modest 
consideration. That is why I am asking that this measure be returned to 
the Committee on Rules for the observation of the 3-day rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert], another member of the Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I really want to congratulate the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the former chairman on the other side 
of the aisle--folks who have been working on this issue for a long, 
long time and have put together a very, very good piece of legislation.
  I might add that the piece of legislation that came out of here in 
the last Congress, also worked on by a group of folks, but it came out 
on suspension. It never got out of the Senate, back to the House in a 
conference. The gentleman from Michigan was talking about this bill, 
when my Democrat colleagues passed a bill on the suspension calendar 
with no amendments, 40 minutes of debate, and that was it. So take the 
difference in what is happening here.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the 
Communications Act of 1995. I have worked on this legislation for 
several years, and I am proud to come to the floor to support a bill 
that will unleash $63 billion in economic activity.
  Reform of the 1934 Communications Act is long overdue. The road map 
for our communications future, outlined in the 1934 Act and the courts, 
still anticipates two-lane back roads rather than the fast paced super-
highways we have today. The U.S. District Court began the trip toward 
competition when it issued the modified final judgment [MFJ] that 
required the breakup of ``Ma Bell'' 10 years ago and brought 
competition to the long-distance industry. Back then, I served as 
chairman of the Illinois Joint Committee on Public Utility Reform. We 
were charged with the task of revamping Illinois law to bring more 
competition. At that time, it was assumed that competition was not a 
good thing for local telephone service; the local telephone loop was 
viewed as a natural monopoly. Now, because of advances in technology, 
we see that it is possible--and preferable--to bring competition to the 
local loop.
  But the MFJ has not brought about the full fledged competition 
consumers needed in every part of the communications industry. Thus, 
Congress has risen to the task of planning the road-trip so that 
American consumers will have more choices and innovative services, and 
will pay lower prices for communications products.
  The map shows that there are pitstops along the road to competition. 
Everyone is in favor of ``fair'' competition as industries begin to 
contend in each others businesses. Fair competition means local 
telephone companies will not be able to provide long-distance service 
in the region where they have held a monopoly until several conditions 
have been met to break that monopoly.
  First, the local Bell operating company [BOC] must open its local 
loop to competitors and verify it is open by meeting an extensive 
competitive checklist. Second, there must be a facilities-based 
competitor, or a competitor with its own equipment, in place. Third, 
the Federal communications Commissions [FCC] must determine that the 
BOC's entry into the long-distance market is in the public interest. 
And fourth, the FCC must give substantial weight to comments from the 
Department of Justice about possible competitive concerns when BOC's 
provide long-distance services.
  Consumers can be sure BOC's won't get the prize before crossing the 
finish line.
  As a member of the Commerce Committee, I worked on several provisions 
of this bill, and was the author of section 245(a)(2)(B) of H.R. 1555 
which deals with the issue of BOC entry into in-region inter-LATA 
telecommunications service. This provision has become section 
271(c)(1)(B) in the conference report. Section 271(c)(1)(B) provides 
that a BOC may petition the FCC for this in-region authority if it has, 
after 10 months from enactment, not received any request for access and 
interconnection or any request for access and interconnection from a 
facilities-based competitor that meets the criteria in section 
271(c)(1)(A). Section 271(c)(1)(A) calls for an agreement with a 
carrier to provide this carrier with access and interconnection so that 
the carrier can provide telephone exchange service to both business and 
residential subscribers. This carrier must also be facilities based; 
not be affiliated with BOC; and must be actually providing the 
telephone exchange service through its own facilities or predominantly 
its own facilities.
  Section 271(c)(1)(B) also provides that a BOC shall not be deemed to 
have received a request for access and interconnection if a carrier 
meeting the criteria in section 271(c)(1)(A) has requested such access 
and interconnection; has reached agreement with the BOC to provide the 
access and interconnection; and the State has approved the agreement 
under section 252, but this requesting carrier fails to comply with the 
State approved agreement by failing to implement, within a reasonable 
period of time, the implementation schedule that all section 252 
agreements must contain. Under these circumstances, no request shall be 
deemed to have been made.
  Mr. Speaker, we have given serious debate and consideration to this 
bill. Now is the time for Congress to set reasonable guidelines for our 
communications future. All signs point to competition ahead, so I urge 
my colleagues to give the Telecommunications Act of 1996 a green light.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.

[[Page H1153]]

  Let me acknowledge that this is a very important bill. This is a 
historic occasion. I should add my thanks and appreciation to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], for the efforts that have been 
exhibited. But I do want to raise some concerns as to this rule.
  I remained in my office even up to 10 o'clock and had noted that the 
rule had not come out, even as late as 10 p.m. last evening. Final 
changes were brought to our office in the early part of the evening. 
Conferees were still working, and the Committee on Rules, again, did 
not report until very late. For a bill this important, this is an 
unfair process.
  The conference committee members have not had an opportunity to 
adequately review these technical changes and the report language. This 
bill will revolutionize the telephone, long-distance, cable, and 
broadcast industries and have a far-reaching economic impact upon our 
country.
  For example, it allows telephone companies to enter into other lines 
of business. It deregulates cable rates and expands broadcast 
ownership. It has been one of the most heavily lobbied bills in the 
recent history of this House.
  Many Members of the House and Senate have had major concerns. In 
fact, we have only had three meetings. Some would argue that there has 
been inadequate notice. I know there are good intentions. I would 
simply ask for consideration.
  In addition, we have had an additional absurdity with the inclusion 
of language prohibiting the transfer of legally sound information 
regarding choice and family planning. That means that legitimate 
physicians in their offices cannot transfer information.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to raise a question over what is the big rush to 
consider this legislation now. Members can use the 3-week recess to 
adequately review this bill. I cannot believe anyone can seriously 
object to a 3-week delay in considering this bill.
  Therefore, I would ask Members to oppose this rule at this time so 
that we can add a measure of fairness to this historic occasion, 
recognizing the good work that has been done but understanding that it 
is also important for individual Members to likewise do their work and 
to ensure that they have had the proper time to review, the proper 
notice and as well to be able to assure their constituents, as I know 
they would want to do, that this is in fact both historic but fair and 
open-ended and responsive to the concerns that have been raised.
  I ask again for 3 weeks and ask again for reconsideration of the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I must rise to express my concerns regarding the rule on 
the telecommunications conference report. This legislation is one of 
the most comprehensive bills to be considered in the 104th Congress. It 
is the most extensive revision of our communications laws since the 
Communications Act of 1934.
  I am concerned about the process relating to bring this bill to the 
floor. The final changes to the conference report were not distributed 
until last night. Furthermore, the conference report was signed by 
House conferees last night and filed very late last night. Finally, the 
Rules Committee considered the rule on the report late last night. This 
is a terrible and unfair process for such an important bill. The 
conference committee members have not had an opportunity to adequately 
review these technical changes and the report language.
  This bill will revolutionize the telephone, long-distance, cable, and 
broadcast industries and have a far-reaching economic impact upon our 
country. For example, it allows telephone companies to enter into other 
lines of business, it deregulates cable rates, and expands broadcast 
ownership. It has been one of the most heavily lobbied bills in the 
recent history of the House. Most Members of the House have not had the 
opportunity to study this bill. Additionally, members of the House and 
Senate conference committee have had major concerns regarding the 
conference committee process, particularly the inadequate notice of 
staff meetings, the level of participation by all staff. An additional 
absurdity is the inclusion of language prohibiting the transfer of 
legally sound information regarding choice and family planning. That 
means that legitimate physicians cannot communicate office to office on 
medical procedures. There were only three meetings of the conference 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to raise the question over what is the big rush 
to consider this legislation now. Members can use the 3-week recess to 
adequately review this bill. I cannot believe anyone can seriously 
object to a 3-week delay in considering this bill. Therefore, I must 
oppose this rule on this conference report.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  To paraphrase Mr. Churchill, This is not the end. It is not even the 
beginning of the end. It is perhaps the end of the beginning, the 
beginning of an explosion in technology and invasion.
  It will not be many years before Americans are going to be startled 
and people across the world startled about the kinds of goods and 
services and products coming through their television receivers in 
their homes.
  This, I believe, would be the most important job-creating bill of my 
career in this House. I was excited to have been privileged to be a 
part of working on this since early summer as a member of the Committee 
on Rules and even involved in some of the technology. It was an 
example, the whole process, of how the two sides can work together and 
cooperate.
  I have already commended the chairmen, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I think the ranking members, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] were very helpful 
through the whole process. They worked with each other. I was proud to 
be a part of that process.
  I would like to say especially, nobody helped me more in the rule and 
dealing with the amendments than the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell]. I want to say, I am grateful.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 337, 
nays 80, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 24]

                               YEAS--337

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     
[[Page H1154]]

     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--80

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ackerman
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TX)
     Callahan
     Chapman
     DeLay
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Hastings (WA)
     Rogers
     Rose
     Taylor (NC)
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                              {time}  1439

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas and Messrs. GUTIERREZ, STARK, and SCHUMER 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. HOYER changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 353, I call up 
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 652) to provide for a 
procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework designed to 
accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced 
telecommunications and information technologies and services to all 
Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and 
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 353, the conference report is considered as having been 
read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Wednesday, January 31, 1996, at page H 1078.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] will be recognized for 30 minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. CONYERS. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the traditional 20 
minutes in opposition under the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan support the 
conference report?
  Mr. CONYERS. No, sir, I do not.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe I can save the body a little 
time. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report. I believe the 
gentleman's claim for the 20 minutes is entirely correct. I would urge 
the Chair to grant the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 20 
minutes, 20 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and 20 
minutes to myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule XXVIII, the 
time will be divided 3 ways.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be recognized for 20 
minutes, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] will be recognized 
for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
  (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the telecommunications 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleagues, particularly 
Chairman Bliley, the ranking member, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Fields, Mr. 
Markey, as well as Chairman Hyde, on this historic reform of our 
Nation's telecommunications laws. Passage of this landmark bill will 
foster job growth, product innovation, consumer savings, and economic 
development across all sectors of our economy. The legislation's 
removal of barriers to competition in the telephone, cable, and 
broadcast industries will open markets and increase competition in the 
communications industry that will better prepare our Nation to enter 
the new millennium.
  I am pleased that the conferees have included in their final report a 
provision I sponsored in H.R. 1555 that I believe embodies the 
deregulatory intent of this legislation--a provision which adjusts one 
piece of a larger regulatory barrier that has been ignored by 
regulators since its inception.
  Since 1981, Bell operating companies have been prohibited from 
jointly marketing their local telephone service and cellular services 
due to an FCC rule requiring the establishment of an RBOC cellular 
separate subsidiary. This rule was originally intended to apply to the 
predivestiture AT&T when the Commission determined that AT&T and one 
other company would be granted the two cellular licenses in each 
market.
  During the breakup of the old Bell system, AT&T transferred its 
cellular licenses to its newly established offspring, the regional Bell 
operating companies. Because the Commission was in the process of 
overseeing the breakup of the world's largest corporation, the FCC 
understandably had precious little time to worry with establishing new 
rules for RBOC participation in the then nascent cellular business. 
Consequently, the Commission determined that RBOC cellular operations 
would be conducted under the same rules that had been developed for 
AT&T, and that the Commission would review the matter in 2 years. Given 
the circumstances, such a decisions seems understandable. What is not 
understandable, however, is what has happened in the meantime--nothing.
  For 14 years the FCC has ignored its commitment to review the 
necessity of its RBOC cellular separate subsidiary rule. While cellular 
exploded into a dynamic, competitive industry, the FCC took no action. 
In fact, when the Commission established the rules for a new wireless 
service, PCS [Personal Communications Service]--designed to compete 
with cellular, the FCC determined that RBOC's would not be required to 
establish separate subsidiaries for their new PCS wireless services. 
Yet, inexplicably, the Commission said there was not enough information 
on the record to warrant removal of the RBOC cellular separate 
subsidiary rule.

  It is difficult to imagine how the FCC could acquire enough 
information to establish a new set of wireless competitors [PCS] to 
cellular, determine separate subsidiaries would not be required for 
RBOC PCS services, and still state there was not enough information to 
justify removal of the cellular separate subsidiary 

[[Page H1155]]
rule. Understandably, the companies impacted by this decision found it 
difficult to understand and so has the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit.
  In a ruling issued November 9th, the Appeals Court found the FCC's 
PCS rulemaking decision on the cellular separate subsidiary rule to be 
arbitrary and capricious stating:

       Instead, the FCC simply stated that the record in the 
     Personal Communications Service Rulemaking proceedings was 
     insufficient to determine whether to eliminate the structural 
     separation requirement. We believe this to be arbitrary and 
     capricious given the somewhat contradictory findings of the 
     FCC during the course of the Personal Communications Service 
     rulemaking and related proceedings. If Personal 
     Communications Service and Cellular are sufficiently similar 
     to warrant the Cellular eligibility restrictions and are 
     expected to compete for customers on price, quality, and 
     services, what difference between the two services justifies 
     keeping the structural separation rule intact for Bell 
     Cellular providers?

  The court remanded to the Commission for further proceedings its 
decision on this rule. Such action normally would be encouraging for 
the companies involved. Unfortunately, regulators like regulation. More 
than 1 month after the sixth circuit's ruling ``that the time is now 
for the FCC to reconsider whether to rescind the structural separation 
requirement'' the Commission has taken no action, notwithstanding the 
court's belief that ``time is of the essence on this issue.''
  It simply makes no sense to require Bell cellular operations to 
remain in separate subsidiaries--and prohibited from joint marketing 
opportunities--when the Commission has determined that no such 
requirements are necessary for Bell PCS operations. The appeals court 
acknowledged this fact stating:

       BellSouth's strongest argument is perhaps that the factual 
     predicate which justified the structural separation 
     requirement is no longer valid. BellSouth points out that the 
     FCC believes that the safeguards such as mandatory 
     interconnection enforceable by individual complaint process 
     suffice to combat possible discrimination and cross-
     subsidization in the Personal Communications Service 
     industry. BellSouth claims that this removes any 
     justification retention of the structural separation 
     requirement for Cellular licenses, and that the FCC has 
     arbitrarily failed to remove restrictions . . . We agree with 
     BellSouth that the time is now for the FCC to reconsider 
     whether to rescind the structural separation requirement . . 
     . after fourteen years, further delay in determining whether 
     to rescind the structural separation requirement severely 
     penalizes the Bell Companies at a time when the wireless 
     communications industry is exploding and changing almost 
     daily. The disparate treatment afforded the Bell Companies 
     impacts on their ability to compete in the ever-evolving 
     wireless communications marketplace.

  I am glad this legislation takes the first, important step toward 
restoring parity in this area by allowing Bell operating companies to 
jointly market their cellular and local services. It is my hope, that 
after 14 years and a clear rebuke from the court, the FCC will take the 
next step and review its cellular separate subsidiary rule.
  Mr. Speaker, once again I congratulate the committee chairman and the 
subcommittee chairman on producing this historic legislation.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the 
Committee on Commerce, without whose Herculean efforts we would not be 
here today.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for 
that statement. I had the opportunity during the rule to talk about the 
substance of this bill and what it means for America and our consumers. 
I want to take my time just to say thanks.
  First and foremost, I want to acknowledge the commitment and 
leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], 
who has been a constant source of support and encouragement as we move 
this legislation forward.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for 
the way he has led the efforts of the minority. As always, it was with 
conviction and the style of the true gentleman that Mr. Dingell is.
  I also want to thank my good friend and confidant, my fellow voyager 
in this effort, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], for the 
many long hours of debate and consultation, the pizza in his office, 
the pizza in my office, but always ending any disagreement with a 
smile. I hope that all of us involved have set the standard of how 
Congress can work together over very difficult and contentious issues.
  I also want to be effusive in praise of my colleague, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the vice chairman of our subcommittee; the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], and our two freshmen stars, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Frisa] and the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. White], our team.
  I would also be remiss if I did not thank and recognize the hard work 
of Mike Regan, Cathy Reid, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, and Mike O'Reilly, 
and on the Democratic side of the aisle, Colin Crowell and David Leach, 
David Moulton of Mr. Markey's staff, Alan Roth and Andy Levin, of Mr. 
Dingell's staff.
  Not only do I want to acknowledge David Leach for his hard work, but 
I want to publicly apologize to him for all the practical jokes that I 
have played on him for the last 3\1/2\ years.
  I also want to give special recognition to Steve Cope, our 
legislative draftsman. He is an unsung hero who gave us late hours away 
from his family and lost many weekends during the course of this 
multiyear process. He has my highest respect and my gratitude.
  Certainly last, but not least, I want to give special, special 
recognition to Christy Strawman, my telecommunications expert, because, 
like others, she is an unsung hero that has been pivotal in bringing 
this issue to fruition. She has been a star in this process.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is a special, watershed, 
historic moment. We are at the dawn of the Information Age. What we do 
today is vitally important to the future of our country. Not only am I 
proud of the package; I am also proud of the process in which we 
debated and formed this legislation, working with both sides of the 
aisle, bringing this policy, this legislation, to fruition.
  The inclusion in the telecommunications bill of the requirement that 
a television rating code be established by the Federal Communications 
Commission for all television programs and that broadcasters be 
required to transmit to a V-chip the ratings given to their programs is 
plainly unconstitutional.
  Any legislation that requires the rating of television programs based 
on their inclusion of violence, depictions of sexual conduct or the 
like is a content-based burden on speech. That is just what the first 
amendment does not permit. Inserting the Federal Government into the 
area of deciding what should be on television or how the content of 
television programs should be rated sets a dangerous precedent that 
threatens the very rights the first amendment is designed to protect.
  Think about the rating system Congress is today requiring. There is 
the problem of how any such system can distinguish between programs 
that show what we might call senseless or gratuitous violence and those 
that depict violence in a way that educates, informs, or edifies. It is 
hard to believe that we're prepared to say that any violence 
whatsoever, in any context whatsoever, should be treaded the same way 
and subjected to blocking by the same V-chip--whether it's 
``Schindler's List'' or ``Nightmare on Elm Street,'' ``Gandhi'' or 
``The Terminator.''
  But as soon as the FCC tries to make a distinction for rating 
purposes between what is ``bad violence'' that should be blocked and 
what is ``good violence'' that should not be blocked, it is squarely in 
the business of regulating speech based on its content or perceived 
value to society and therefore squarely in violation of the first 
amendment. At the same time, if the Commission throws up its hands and 
acknowledges that it cannot make such distinctions and thus requires 
every program containing any element of violence at all to get a V 
rating, the V-chip will be activated across the board and across the 
Nation in a way that blocks out valuable contributors to public 
awareness and knowledge. The effect will be that some--perhaps many--
programs that are genuinely good for children or adolescents to see 
will not be seen by them. What's more, we will be creating a situation 
in which Government would be leading the public to view all treatments 
of violence as equal, thus washing away good, serious, thoughtful 
programs with real merit along with the junk.
  V-chip legislation is a blunt instrument, far blunter than the first 
amendment allows. The 

[[Page H1156]]
public would be far better served by Government encouraging the 
development of technologies that allow parents to make discriminating 
choices, real choices, for their children based on their own values and 
their own beliefs.
  The likelihood that the V-chip provision will be held 
unconstitutional is increased by the reality, known to every Member of 
this body, that the bill is actually being proposed not for the purpose 
of ``empowering'' parents but of pressuring broadcasters to change the 
television programming they offer. We all have our own views about what 
should be on television. The first amendment bars us from putting those 
views into law.
  Finally, recent court decisions have raised the most serious doubts 
about the continued viability of the whole notion that broadcasters 
must receive only second class first amendment treatment. The FCC 
itself determined in the Syracuse Peace Council case that the explosion 
of new outlets for speech has seriously undermined the rationale for 
permitting more intrusive regulation of broadcasters than of other 
media. That is even more true today than it was 8 years ago when that 
case was decided. Recent opinions of the chief judges of both the D.C. 
Circuit and the Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals have likewise 
maintained that there is no longer any basis for according broadcasters 
more limited protection from Government intrusion than the First 
Amendment gives to cable operators, record companies or the print 
press. Most first amendment scholars have come to the same conclusion. 
In any event, whether or not a new, more speech-protective, first 
amendment standard is utilized in a court challenge to this 
legislation, the law cannot withstand analysis under any first 
amendment test.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on a historic bill. This 
telecommunications bill is historic because it finally will bring to an 
end the era of telephone and cable television monopolies. The bill is 
historic because it will trigger technological innovation as we have 
never seen before--stimulating economic growth and job creation by 
small and large businesses alike. But just as striking as these 
developments undoubtedly will be, the bill is historic for another 
important reason. It demonstrates that Congress can work together in a 
bipartisan way to produce a bill that serves the interests of all 
Americans.
  I congratulate my friends, Chairmen Bliley and Fields, Representative 
Markey and others, for their unrelenting pursuit of bipartisan 
agreement on this bill. This is the way Congress is supposed to work, 
and I think we can all learn from this example. Chairman Bliley 
approached this task in a very productive way, soliciting advice and 
offering compromise at many points along the way. He managed the 
process extremely well, as evidenced by the widespread support that he 
has mustered--not only in the conference and in the House--but in every 
part of an industry that usually can agree on little else. Chairman 
Bliley and others working on this conference committee should be 
congratulated and given our thanks for the remarkable product before us 
today--a product that was in the making for several Congresses before 
this one, and that will finally make its way to the President's desk 
and beyond.
  This telecommunications bill certainly will change the way Americans 
get their information and entertainment. No longer will consumers have 
just one company to choose from for the provision of local telephone or 
cable television service. Companies will be able to offer any or all of 
these services, giving consumers for the first time the ability to buy 
packages of telecommunications services that provide them with the best 
value at the lowest price.

  This bill also will enable parents to make intelligent choices about 
what television programming is appropriate for their children. It 
requires that new television sets be equipped with a computer chip 
designed to automatically detect the rating that has been assigned to 
any television show. And it encourages television broadcasters to 
develop a voluntary rating system that will provide parents with the 
means to discern whether programming coming into their home is age-
appropriate for their children.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few special words about the concerns of 
our local elected officials, and most especially our mayors. This 
conference agreement strengthens the ability of local governments to 
collect fees for the use of public rights-of-way. For example, the 
definition of the term ``cable service'' has been expanded to include 
game channels and other interactive services. This will result in 
additional revenues flowing to the cities in the form of franchise 
fees. In addition, the legislation also lifts the FCC's current ban on 
the imposition of franchise fees for telephone companies' open video 
systems. That too will increase revenues to the cities.
  At the same time, State and local governments retain their existing 
authority to impose fees on telecommunications providers, including 
cable companies that offer telecommunications services. Finally, and 
perhaps most important, section 303 does not preclude a local 
government from lawfully managing public rights-of-way with respect to 
a cable company's telecommunications services. In short, Mr. Speaker, 
we have listened closely to our local officials, who have done a good 
job of helping us understand their concerns, and have crafted a bill 
that not only retains their current authorities but, in many instances, 
strengthens them. We appreciate the support for the bill we have 
received from the National League of Cities and the National 
Association of Counties.
  Is this a perfect bill? No. No bill as large and complex as this one, 
addressing so many difficult issues, is ever perfect. But it is an 
excellent piece of legislative work. it will open telecommunications 
markets in a fair and balanced manner--it provides American businesses 
with a level playing field on which to compete, and it removes those 
aspects of government regulation that are antiquated while ensuring 
that every American continues to receive affordable service.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to pay tribute to the incredible 
efforts of our staff, who put in countless hours, often working into 
the wee hours of the morning, to bring this bill to fruition. Our 
special thanks go to the minority staff of the Commerce Committee, 
especially David Leach, who has worked on the legislation for several 
Congresses and guided our successful efforts in the House in the last 
Congress, and Andy Levin, who joined our staff as a new counsel at the 
start of the conference and truly received a baptism under fire. I want 
to thank Colin Crowell and David Meulton from the staff of subcommittee 
ranking member Ed Markey for their hard work, as well as the staff of 
the Judiciary Committee. From the Commerce Committee, Mike Regan and 
Cathy Reid did outstanding work in coordinating these efforts. And as 
always, the legislative counsel, Steve Cope, and his colleague on the 
PUHCA issue, Pope Barrow, did their usual extraordinary job. We 
appreciate all the staffs' hard work.
  Once again, I congratulate my colleagues on this achievement, and I 
urge all Members to join me in approving this conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very, very important that we 
look as carefully as we can at a trillion-dollar-a-year industry 
legislation.
  First of all, I want to tell everybody in this Chamber, there are a 
lot of things I like in the bill; I like a lot of things. The Antitrust 
Division part that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and I 
worked on tirelessly is in this bill, and I support it strongly. We 
keep the Antitrust Division at the center of the telecommunications 
debate, and I am pleased that we all agreed upon that. It is important 
that the Department of Justice have an enhanced role in reviewing the 
Bell entry into long-distance, and we have been very successful.
  But, Mr. Speaker, let us get to the reservations. Are there any? 
Well, you have not read the 111-page conference report, so I will give 
you the benefit of just a few of the problems that you might want to 
know about before we cast this ballot in less than an hour.
  The cable provisions allow for deregulation before the advent of 
competition, raising the specter of unregulated monopoly. Two 
Congresses ago 

[[Page H1157]]
we spent considerable time and energy, and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Dingell] was leading that, in adopting legislation to protect 
consumers from price-gouging; and we were finally able to pass the bill 
over President Bush's veto.
  This Congress, we have new leadership that has decided that consumer 
protection must take a back seat to industry demands, although a small 
concession to consumers was made by delaying the date of price 
increases until 1999.
  This is not Conyers, this is the Consumer Federation of America: 
``Even with the significant improvements, the bill does not stimulate 
enough competition. For every step taken to encourage competition, the 
bill has provisions which undermine its goal. Instead of promoting 
head-to-head competition between cable, telephone, and other 
communications companies, the bill allows mergers and corporate 
combinations that will drive up cable rates and undercut competition.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay homage to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the 
gentleman from Michigan and ranking member [Mr. Conyers], the gentleman 
from Michigan and ranking member [Mr. Dingell], Senator Pressler, and 
all of the staffs who have done enormously important work in bringing 
this to fruition.
  This legislation represents the most sweeping communications reform 
legislation to be considered in this House in over 60 years. It will 
establish the ground rules for our national telecommunications policy 
as we enter the 21st century.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey] for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the committee, and other 
members of the conference in bringing this very important conference 
report to the floor today. However, I would like to bring to your 
attention one section that is very troubling to me.
  Section 507 amends the preexisting section of the Criminal Code (18 
U.S.C. 1462) and applies it to the Internet. Now, it was my 
understanding that your intent behind adopting this provision was to 
place reasonable restrictions on obscenity and indecency on the 
Internet. I support this goal.
  However, a section of this act may be construed to curb discussions 
about abortion. It seems to me this provision would certainly be 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. HYDE. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree 
with the gentlewoman that any discussion about abortion, both pro-life 
and pro-abortion rights, is protected by the first amendment guarantee 
of free speech; and I certainly agree, nothing in title V should be 
interpreted to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion.
  Further, it is correct that our principal intent in adopting this 
provision was to curb the spread of obscenity and indecency, speech 
that is not protected by the first amendment, from the Internet in 
order to protect our children.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, with that assurance, I feel comfortable 
supporting this bill, and I hope that my colleagues who were also 
concerned about this provision will now feel comfortable supporting 
this bill. I thank the gentleman for clarifying this point and for his 
hard work on this bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesy.
  As the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee--because of our 
committee's jurisdiction over the Federal antitrust laws and Federal 
regulatory procedures--I approached this important and complex issue 
from a competition and deregulatory policy perspective. Clearly, the 
proposed entry of the regional Bell operating companies into the long 
distance and manufacturing markets raises fundamental antitrust 
questions. After all, it is an antitrust consent decree, commonly known 
as the Modification of Final Judgment or ``MFJ,'' that now prevents 
them from entering those businesses, and it is that decree that we are 
now superseding. Also, the telecommunications industry is a highly 
regulated one at both the Federal and State levels. In my view, less 
regulation is a desirable goal in this instance, because it will spur 
further technological innovation, greater competition and job 
development.
  On May 2, 1995, I introduced H.R. 1528, the Antitrust Consent Decree 
Reform Act of 1995. H.R. 1528 proposed to supersede the MFJ and replace 
it with a quick and deregulatory antitrust review of Bell entry by the 
Department of Justice. Under H.R. 1528, the Bell companies would have 
been able to apply to the Department of Justice for entry into the long 
distance and manufacturing markets immediately upon the date of 
enactment. The Department of Justice would then have had 180 days to 
review the application under a substantive antitrust standard--
specifically, Justice would have been required to approve the 
application unless it found by a preponderance of the evidence that 
there was a ``dangerous probability that the Bell company would use its 
market power to substantially impede competition in the market'' it was 
seeking to enter.
  This approach received broad, bipartisan support within the Judiciary 
Committee. In fact, on May 18, 1995, the full Judiciary Committee 
reported H.R. 1528 by a 29 to 1 recorded vote. unfortunately, however, 
it became apparent that there was not broad-based House support for a 
potential Department of Justice veto over Bell entry.
  The Commerce Committee, on the other hand, understandably looked at 
this issue from a telecommunications policy and Communications Act 
perspective. Its bill--H.R. 1555--which ultimately became the House 
legislative vehicle, required the Bell operating companies to meet 
various Federal and State legal requirements to open their local 
exchanges to competition before they are allowed into the long distance 
and manufacturing businesses.

  In keeping with the long tradition of our Committees sharing 
jurisdiction over the subject of telecommunications legislation, we 
cooperated closely on the formulation of the manager's amendment to 
H.R. 1555, which was adopted on the House floor in August. A number of 
the provisions originally contained in my bill--H.R. 1528--were moved 
into H.R. 1555 through the manager's amendment. Furthermore, following 
House passage, our two committees continued to work closely together 
representing the House position in the House-Senate conference 
committee.
  Again, I strongly believe the conference report on S. 652 is good 
legislation that will move America's telecommunications industry 
forward into the 21st century. Allow me now to briefly explain a few 
key provisions that were of particular importance to Judiciary 
Committee conferees.
  The conference agreement does include a strong consultative role for 
the Attorney General. Under this part of the agreement, the Department 
of Justice will apply any antitrust standard it considers appropriate, 
which may include the dangerous probability standard from H.R. 1528, to 
applications by the Bells to enter long distance. After conducting its 
antitrust analysis, DOJ will provide its views in writing to the FCC 
and they will be made a part of the public record relating to the 
application. The conference agreement enhances this consultative role 
by requiring that the FCC give substantial weight to the views of the 
Attorney General. By giving this special status to the views of DOJ, 
the conferees acknowledge the long experience and considerable 
expertise it has developed in this field. Under this approach, the FCC 
will have the benefit of a DOJ antitrust analysis before the Bell 
companies are allowed to enter the long distance market.
  The conference agreement also enhances DOJ's role in another way--it 
repeals section 221(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
Sec. 221(a)). Congress enacted section 221(a) when local telephone 
service was viewed as a natural monopoly. The statute currently 
provides that when any two telephone companies merge, the FCC should 
determine whether the merger will be ``of advantage to the persons to 
whom service is to be rendered and in the public interest.'' If so, the 
FCC can render the transaction immune from ``any Act or Acts of 
Congress making the proposed transaction unlawful.''
  However, the conferees concluded that section 221(a) could 
inadvertently undercut several of the provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The critical term ``telephone company'' 
is not defined. In the new world of competition, many companies will be 
able to argue plausibly that they are telephone companies. When two 
telephone companies merge, section 221(a) allows the FCC to confer 
immunity from any act of Congress--including the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996--after performing a public interest review.

  Thus, if it were not repealed, section 221(a) could easily have been 
used to avoid the 

[[Page H1158]]
cable-telco buyout provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 
Any cable company that owned any telephone assets could become a 
telephone company and be bought out by an RBOC by applying for immunity 
under this section. Likewise, if section 221(a) were broadly 
interpreted, it might also have been used to get around all the other 
line of business restrictions in the bill, including the restriction on 
RBOC entry into long distance. Fortunately, the conference agreement 
closes this loophole.
  In addition, because section 221(a) allowed the FCC to confer 
immunity from antitrust statutes, it would have allowed mergers between 
telecommunications giants to go forward without any antitrust review. 
Mergers between these kinds of companies should not be allowed to go 
through without a thorough antitrust review under the normal Hart-
Scott-Rodino process. A public interest review by the FCC simply is not 
a strong enough tool to prevent these giants from destroying 
competition and recreating a monopoly system through a series of 
megamergers.
  By returning review of mergers in a competitive industry to the DOJ, 
this repeal is consistent with one of the underlying themes of the 
bill--to get both agencies back to their proper roles and to end 
Government by consent decree. The FCC should be carrying out the 
policies of the Communications Act, and the DOJ should be carrying out 
the policies of the antitrust laws. The repeal does not affect the 
FCC's ability to conduct any review of a merger for Communications Act 
purposes, for example transfer of licenses. Rather, it simply ends the 
FCC's ability to confer antitrust immunity. In an era of competitive 
telecommunications giants, mergers between them ought to be reviewed in 
the same fashion as those in all other industries.
  The Judiciary Committee conferees have also focused on the provisions 
contained in title VI, which address the effect of the bill on other 
laws. With respect to the various consent decrees, the conference 
agreement adopts a new approach to the supersession of the Modification 
of Final Judgment--now called the AT&T Consent Decree in the conference 
agreement--and the GTE consent decree. It also adds language 
superseding the AT&T-McCaw Consent Decree--McCaw Consent Decree. The 
Conference Committee sought to avoid any possibility that the language 
in the conference agreement might be interpreted as impinging on the 
judicial power. Congress may not by legislation retroactively overturn 
a final judgment. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 115 S.Ct. 1447 
(1995). On the other hand, Congress may by legislation modify or 
eliminate the prospective effect of a continuing injunction. Robertson 
v. Seattle Audubon Society, 503 U.S. 429 (1992); Plaut, 115 S.Ct. 1447; 
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421 (1856).
  To avoid any possible constitutional problem, the Conference 
Committee adopted the following new approach. Rather than superseding 
all or part of these continuing injunctions, the conference agreement 
simply provides that all conduct or activities that are currently 
subject to these consent decrees shall, on and after the date of 
enactment, become subject to the requirements and obligations of the 
act and shall no longer be subject to the restrictions and obligations 
of the respective consent decrees. The new approach did require some 
adjustment in other parts of the bill, including provisions: No. 1, to 
continue existing equal access and nondiscrimination requirements for 
local exchange carriers, No. 2, to adjust the definition of RBOC to 
exclude successors that do not provide wireline service, and No. 3, to 
continue activities allowed under existing MFJ waiver requests that 
have been ruled on before enactment. I believe that each of these 
adjustments has been made successfully and that this new approach will 
insulate the bill from constitutional attack.

  In other parts of title VI, the conference agreement retains the 
House language that expressly provides that no State tax laws are 
unintentionally preempted by implication or interpretation. Rather, 
such preemptions are limited to provisions specifically enumerated in 
this clause. One of those enumerated preemptions, section 602, is the 
local tax exemption for providers of direct to home satellite services. 
The conference agreement adopts the House language with minor 
modifications to insure that the exemption extends only to the 
provision of programming.
  Section 602 reflects a legislative determination that the provision 
of direct-to-home satellite service is national, not local in nature. 
Unlike cable and telephone companies which utilize public rights-of-way 
to provide service to their subscribers, providers of direct-to-home 
services utilize satellites to provide programming to their subscribers 
in every jurisdiction. To permit thousands of local taxing 
jurisdictions to tax such a national service would create an 
unnecessary and undue burden on the providers of such services. Local 
taxing jurisdictions are therefor preempted from taxing the provision 
or sale of direct-to-home satellite services. Direct-to-home satellite 
service providers and others in the distribution chain are exempted 
from collecting and remitting local taxes and fees on the sale of such 
services. The power of the States to tax this service is not affected 
by section 602. Again, States may, if they wish, share the revenue thus 
collected with their local municipalities.
  The conference agreement also contains important language, patterned 
after provisions contained in H.R. 1528--and H.R. 1555--on electronic 
publishing. Under the conference agreement, the Bell companies will be 
able to enter the electronic publishing business through a separated 
affiliate or a joint venture. They will be required, however, to 
provide services to small electronic publishers at the same per-unit 
prices that they give to larger publishers. This will allow smaller 
newspapers and other electronic publishers to bring the information 
superhighway to rural areas that might otherwise be passed by.
  The conference agreement joins the House and Senate provisions on 
alarm monitoring. Under the new section 275, Bell operating companies 
and their affiliates, who have not already entered the alarm monitoring 
business, may not provide alarm monitoring services for 5 years from 
the date of enactment.

  BOC's that were lawfully engaged in the alarm monitoring business on 
or before November 30, 1995, however, may continue to provide such 
services. There are no prohibitions under current law barring such 
companies from alarm monitoring, and they should be permitted to 
operate and expand their business just like any other company in our 
free market system. This legislation should not cause these existing 
businesses to be unduly penalized after having lawfully entered the 
business. Moreover, consumers should not be denied the benefits that 
this additional competition will bring.
  It is important to emphasize that it is perfectly legal for the 
regional Bell companies to be in the alarm monitoring business right 
now. Since an appellate court decision in 1991, the information 
services restriction originally in the MFJ has been lifted and the Bell 
Companies have been free to provide alarm monitoring and other 
information services. Only one Bell company--Ameritech--has chosen to 
enter into the alarm business. But they did so in reliance on the law 
as it was--and still is--at the time they entered. They have invested 
company resources and assets in this business.
  It would simply not be fair for Congress to step in and change the 
rules of the game for a company that has lawfully chosen to enter into 
this business. We are not prohibiting any other existing alarm company 
from expanding their business, nor are we prohibiting them from 
acquiring other companies. In my view, legislation that alters the 
legal rights and/or obligations of private parties should be 
prospective rather than retroactive. So, for those Bell companies that 
have chosen not to enter the alarm business, prospective restrictions 
for a period of 5 years are not unfair. That is, once this law is 
passed, a Bell company not already in the business on the date of 
enactment could not enter for another 5 years. It would be quite a 
different matter to limit the actions of a company that already is in 
the business.
  Accordingly, such ``grandfathered'' BOC's may grow their alarm 
monitoring business through customer or asset acquisitions; however for 
5 years from the date of enactment, such a company may ``not acquire 
any equity interest in or obtain financial control'' of an unaffiliated 
alarm monitoring company. It should be noted that any BOC providing 
alarm monitoring services will operate under specific 
nondiscrimination, cross-subsidy, and customer information obligations 
and protections. After 5 years, there will be no entry, equity, or 
financial control restrictions on BOC provision of alarm monitoring 
services.
  Finally and importantly, title V of S. 652 will prohibit using and 
interactive computer service for the purpose of sending indecent 
material to a specific person under the age of 18. It also outlaws the 
display of indecent material without taking precautions to shield that 
material from minors. Defenses to these violations are provided to 
assure that enforcement will focus on those who knowingly transmit such 
material to minors. In fact, the conference report expressly provides 
an absolute legal defense to any on-line access provider, software 
company, employer, and any other, ``solely for providing access or 
connection to or from a facility, system or network not under that 
person's control,'' so long as that person is not involved in ``the 
creation of the content of the communication.'' Employers are also 
protected so long as the actions of their employees fall outside of the 
scope of their employment or if the employer has not ratified the 
illegal activity.

  This provision codifies the definition of indecency that has been 
upheld in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), and Sable 
Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). 
Material that is ``indecent'' is ``material that, in context, depicts 
or describes, in terms patently offensive as 

[[Page H1159]]
measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory 
activities or organs.'' Thus, the standard contained in S. 652 is fully 
consistent with the Constitution; it is not unconstitutionally vague.
  The underlying legal principle of the indecency concept is patent 
offensiveness. Such a determination cannot be made without a 
consideration of the context of the description or depiction at issue. 
As applied, the patent offensiveness inquiry to be made involves two 
distinct elements: the desire to be patently offensive, and a patently 
offensive result. Given these inquiries, it is clear that material with 
serious redeeming value is quite obviously intended to edify and 
educate, not to offend. Therefore, it will be imperative to consider 
the context and the nature of the material in question when determining 
its patent offensiveness.
  Furthermore, title V clarifies current Federal obscenity statutes so 
it is undeniable that those laws cover the use of a computer to 
distribute, transport, or import obscene matter. The regulation of 
Internet indecency contained in the conference report is not based on 
what should be seen or discussed via the vast compute network, but 
rather on where or how it is made available. The provisions of the bill 
are not the most restrictive means, on the contrary, they are 
reasonable and narrowly tailored so not to overly burden one's right to 
engage in indecent communications while at the same time achieving the 
Government's policy objective of protecting our children.
  Concerns have been raised about the amendment to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1462 
regarding an interactive computer service. Section 1462 generally 
prohibits the importation or transportation of obscene matter. 
Subsection 1462(c) prohibits the importation or interstate carriage of 
``any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended 
for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any 
written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, 
advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or 
indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such 
mentioned articles, matters or things may be obtained or made * * *.''

  We are talking about the advertisement, sale or procurement of drugs 
or medical instruments or devices, used to bring about an abortion. 
This language in no way is intended to inhibit free speech about the 
topic of abortion, nor in any way to limit medical or scientific 
discourse on the Internet. This amendment to subsection 1462(c) does 
not prohibit serious discussions about the moral questions surrounding 
abortion, the act of abortion itself, or the constitutionality of 
abortion. This statutory language prohibits the use of an interactive 
computer service for the explicit purpose of selling, procuring or 
facilitating the sale of drugs, medicines or other devices intended for 
use in producing abortions. The statutory language is confined to those 
commercial activities already covered in section 1462(c) of title 18 
and in no way interferes with the freedom of individuals to discuss the 
general topic of abortion on the Internet.
  Finally, section 508 will protect kids from sexual predators by 
making it a crime--punishable by up to 10 years in prison--for anyone 
to use a facility in interstate commerce, including a computer, to 
induce or solicit a child under 18 to engage in prostitution or other 
illegal sexual activity.
  In conclusion, I want to thank Commerce Committee Chairman, Bliley, 
Subcommittee Chairman, Fields, Ranking Member, Conyers, Ranking Member 
Dingell, and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Pressler and their 
staffs for their cooperation in this monumental effort.
  In short, as American advances into the 21st century, this 
telecommunications legislation is tremendously important. It is my firm 
belief that this bill means more jobs for Americans and will greatly 
enhance American competitiveness worldwide. It is high time that we 
replace this overly restrictive consent decree with a statute that 
recognizes the telecommunications realities of the 1990's. I intend to 
support the conference report on S. 652 because it will accomplish 
these goals.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Boucher].
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
conference report on telecommunications reform and urge its adoption by 
the House. This measure will create competition in our 
telecommunications markets, first by freeing telephone companies to 
offer cable TV service inside their telephone service areas, and for 
the first time, bringing genuine competition to the cable market.
  Second and correspondingly, by allowing cable companies and others to 
offer local telephone service and bringing genuine competition for the 
first time to the local telephone market.
  Third, the bill will enhance competition in the long-distance 
industry by freeing the seven Bell operating companies to offer 
interLATA long-distance service.
  Fourth, by making the equipment market in the United States more 
competitive by enabling those same seven companies to manufacture 
equipment.
  A number of benefits will inure from the passage of this bill. 
Consumers will enjoy better pricing, as competition comes into markets 
that today are characterized as monopolies or near monopolies. New 
services will be introduced by the new entrants into these various 
markets.
  Perhaps most importantly, this is the means by which our country will 
obtain a modernization of its telecommunications network. Telephone 
companies to offer cable service will deploy broad-band technologies 
throughout their local exchanges. Cable companies to offer local 
telephone service will install switches in their coaxial networks, and 
the United States will then have the most modern network that exists 
anywhere in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to urge support for the conference report.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], who has worked tirelessly across the years 
for improved telecommunications legislation.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I thank him for his leadership.
  I just want to say that I really do want to find some way that I 
could vote for this, but ever since I was in law school, I always 
learned I should be prepared, and I should read what it is I am voting 
on.
  I am standing here to say to my colleagues there is no way in the 
world that I can read fast enough to get through these 6 pages of 
technical corrections that we received today, single-spaced, by the 
way, and the bill, and put it all together and have any idea what I am 
really reading. So I am very upset that we would waive that 3-day 
period, move forward, and so forth.
  One example of the type of things that we might uncover, let us hope 
that this is the only thing in there, that there would be nothing else 
that we would uncover, but this little nugget that we uncovered about 
referencing in the old COMSAT Act that people have been talking about, 
and that the gentleman, our chairman from Illinois and the gentlewoman 
from New York just had the colloquy about, was one very major thing 
that everybody said, oh, we did not intend to do this. Oh, my goodness, 
how did this happen?

                              {time}  1500

  It is kind of interesting to me that we had time for all these other 
technical corrections, but we did not have time for a technical 
correction to clear up something that nobody intended to do, yet we are 
going to have everybody confused about what in the world is it we 
really meant as we did this.
  And my problem is, we can have an agreement that abortion, the word 
abortion, the big A word, is protected speech under the Constitution, 
which I certainly agree with. But the question is what happens when you 
go on the Internet internationally? Does the Constitution go 
internationally? Does it follow you through the lines? I am not sure.
  Telemedicine is one of the things we had hoped we would be able to 
move out and move into as a big area. What does all of this mean vis-a-
vis that? We do not have an answer.
  Furthermore, unfortunately on this act, there is a decision that came 
down pre-1972 saying this act is constitutional. So we may have a 
colloquy saying, ``I hope it isn't constitutional,'' we have got a 
decision saying it is constitutional. I do not know. I do not have time 
to go do all of that work in this period of time we have before we are 
to vote on it.
  But I think that it is not a good idea to rush this through when it 
is such a significant part of our economy, and we are now seeing this 
gag rule come through which we hope is not a gag rule, but it might be 
a gag rule, and we do not know what the other 6 pages of single-spaced 
things might hold, too.
  I do not know what happened to being thoughtful. It is only the 1st 
day 

[[Page H1160]]
of February. Do we really have to take the whole rest of the month off? 
Could we not read and understand this? Because we are coming up with 
things that we are going to live by and we are going to be held by for 
the next 50 years.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day, and I am only sorry that we could not 
know more things about it.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to also express my support 
to the leadership on both sides of the aisle that have pushed this 
legislation. Special thanks to my good friend, Jack Fields, who is 
retiring at the end of this session and this is going to be his legacy. 
He gets triple gold stars for his work.
  I want to give a special thought on the local control of the right-
of-way. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, and myself and Senator 
Hutchison in the Senate have worked on that. I had a phone conversation 
with the president of the League of Mayors this morning, the gentleman 
from Knoxville, TN. They are supporting the bill.
  I would urge all Members who have had some concerns expressed by 
their mayors to be supportive. We have worked out language in the bill 
and in the conference report that gives cities absolute guarantees to 
control their right-of-way and to charge fair and reasonable 
nondiscriminatory pricing for the use of that right-of-way.
  This is a good piece of work, it is comprehensive, it is 
revolutionary. As my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Boucher], said, this opens up seamless interactive communications for 
all Americans, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, section 702 of the bill adds a new section 222(e) to the 
Communications Act which would prohibit any provider of local telephone 
service from charging discriminatory and/or unreasonable rates, or 
setting discriminatory and/or unreasonable terms or conditions, for 
independent directory publishers buying subscriber list information.
  Subscriber list information is essential to publishing directories. 
Carriers that charge excessive prices or set unfair conditions on 
listing sales deprive consumers and advertisers of cheaper, more 
innovative, more helpful directory alternatives.
  Under section 257 of the bill, within 15 months from the date of 
enactment, the FCC is to undertake rulemakings to identify and remove 
barriers to entry for small businesses involved with telecommunications 
and information services. Clearly, the requirements of section 702 with 
respect to subscriber list information fall within this rulemaking 
requirement.
  As the FCC determines what constitutes a ``reasonable'' price for 
listings, it seems clear that the most significant factor in that 
determination should be the actual, or incremental cost of providing 
the listing to the independent publisher. This approach assures that 
providers get back what it actually costs them to deliver the listings 
to a publisher without being allowed to ``load'' the price with 
unrelated costs and cross-subsidies.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
for this telecommunications act.
  I would like to start out, Mr. Speaker, by paying tribute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of our 
committee, to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], 
chairman of our subcommittee, who really worked tirelessly; to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], ranking member; to David Leach 
of our staff and Lance Scott of mine, thank you for all the hard work 
that you have put in.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of Silicon Valley, CA it is clear 
to me that making the phone industry more like the computer industry 
would be a great boost to our Nation's economy.
  That is why nearly 9 months ago today I stood with my commerce 
committee colleagues to announce my original cosponsorship of this 
historic legislation and rise today as a member of the conference 
committee.
  This legislation sets down a clear framework, or checklist, for 
deregulating the telephone industry and has put in place detailed rules 
to protect consumers from certain monopolies.
  In addition, the bill ensures rapid development and implementation of 
new technologies. Of particular interest to me is its mechanism to 
connect our Nation's children to the Internet and its requirement for a 
V Chip which parents can use to block television shows harmful to their 
children.
  I am also very proud to report that a provision I authored to limit 
the role of the Federal Communications Commission in setting standards 
for the computer and software industry has been included without change 
in the final bill. With this language, consumers will be free to use 
their computers to coordinate the functions of their futuristic homes, 
as opposed to being forced to use foreign-made television sets because 
of an FCC mandate. I say let the market decide.
  Mr. Speaker, as with most legislation, I am not totally satisfied 
with this bill. I am concerned about provisions in it that may 
dangerously decrease the number of voices on our public airwaves.
  I also strongly object to the bill's provision to hold businesses and 
Internet users liable from transmitting loosely defined material over 
computer networks. The Internet is not a U.S. Government network, and 
giving Federal officials indiscriminate censorship authority in this 
area mocks constitutional protections of free speech.
  I urge expeditious judicial review of this provision to ensure that 
free speech protections are not undermined.
  Despite these reservations which are serious ones, I believe our 
Nation must embrace the promise of the 21st century, an American 
century, marked by a new era of telecommunications.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, there is one provision of the act that has been of 
particular interest to me as well as a wide range of companies and 
trade groups associated with the computer and information processing 
industries. Section 301(f) of the act is a provision that I authored 
and originally introduced during the Commerce Committee markup as an 
amendment to H.R. 1555. It limits the role of the Federal 
Communications Commission [FCC] in setting standards that may affect 
the computer and home automation industries. It directs the FCC to set 
only minimal standards for cable equipment compatibility, maximize 
marketplace competition for all features and protocols unrelated to 
descrambling of cable programming, and ensure that the FCC's cable 
compatibility regulations do not affect computer network services, home 
automation, or other types of telecommunications equipment. In short, 
this section keeps the Government out of high-technology standards and 
prevents the FCC from setting standards for the computer and 
communications services of tomorrow.
  Section 301(f) of the Telecommunications Act is a small but key 
ingredient for achieving the purpose of this historic bill: To embrace 
the future by allowing new technologies to flourish with minimum 
Government interference. Just as the act helps to open markets by 
eliminating Government barriers to long-distance and equipment 
manufacturing competition, section 301(f) ensures that our vital 
computer and high-technology markets remain open and competitive by 
ensuring that Government technical standards are kept to a minimum. 
Almost all standards in the communications and computer industries are 
voluntary, private standards--not Government mandates--and they should 
remain that way.
  The principle of keeping Government out of technical standards is 
taking on increasing importance as we observe the accelerating 
convergence of the computer and communications industries. Companies 
throughout America, and all over the world, are feverishly working on 
the communications applications of tomorrow. These include the 
smarthouse--a home where lighting, entertainment, security, and other 
consumer needs are controlled and programmed automatically for users. 
Computers and communications are at the very center of this automation 
revolution. But like most revolutions, this one would wither and die if 
the Government were to set the rules and stifle change.
  Section 301(f) modifies the FCC's authority in order to reign in the 
Commission's ongoing rulemaking on cable equipment compatibility. The 
problem Congress faces is that the agency has taken our 1992 Cable 
Act--the source of the Commission's power to assure compatibility 
between televisions, VCR's, and cable systems--and gone far beyond what 
appropriate public policy requires or its statutory authority permits. 
The Commission's 1994 proposal for a decoder interface would make the 
television set the gateway to the burgeoning 

[[Page H1161]]
information superhighway, relegating the computer, and all other home 
appliances, to second-tier status. It also would include one specific 
home automation protocol--called CEBus, or Consumer Electronic Bus--as 
the mechanism by which all cable-ready TV's and set-top boxes would 
communicate.

  My amendment prevents these consequences by precluding the Commission 
from standardizing any features or protocols that are not necessary for 
descrambling, preventing the selection of CEBus or any other home 
automation protocol as a part of the FCC's cable compatibility 
regulations, and precluding the Commission from affecting products in 
the computer or home automation marketplaces in any way. Section 301(f) 
leaves these standards to be set, as they should be, by competition in 
the marketplace. It makes clear that the Commission does not have the 
authority to prefer one home automation technology over another or 
permit its cable compatibility rules to affect the unrelated computer 
or home automation markets.
  Some have questioned whether section 301(f) was intended to prevent 
the Commission from achieving cable compatibility. To that I say 
simply: No. The provision does not change the agency's power to ensure 
that cable set-top boxes no longer interfere with the advanced features 
of consumer TV's--like picture-in-picture. And as the conference report 
makes clear, Congress intends that the FCC should now promptly complete 
its long-delayed cable compatibility rulemaking. What the Commission 
cannot do, however, is use the 1992 Cable Act as a justification or 
excuse for broad Government standards on home automation communications 
or audio-visual equipment.
  Under section 301(f), the FCC is required to maximize marketplace 
competition and private standards, not the role of Government 
regulations. It is required to let the market resolve standards issues 
for emerging technologies and services--like satellite broadcasting, 
video-on-demand and home automation--and to keep its cable 
compatibility standards narrowly tailored to solve only the specific 
problems the 1992 act asked the FCC to handle. The decoder interface, 
with its artificial bottleneck for the television and its unnecessary 
impact on home automation, is far from the only approach to solving 
those limited problems. The Commission must rework its compatibility 
proposal. It should also seek input from the computer, home automation, 
video dial tone and other potentially affected industries, not just the 
cable television and consumer electronics industries.

  Some have also questioned why the prohibition in section 301(f)--that 
the Commission may not affect the computer or home automation markets--
is so broad. To that I answer that the language is broad in order to 
effectively implement the principle that FCC regulations should not 
interfere in competitive markets. Because there is no reason to affect 
home automation or computers, and because even inadvertent or 
relatively small effects on competitive markets can easily displace 
technological innovation, section 301(f) is weighted toward protecting 
competition and open markets. As the conference report states, any 
``material influence'' on unrelated markets is prohibited. Because it 
is impossible for agencies or courts to judge whether the impact of 
technical standards in emerging markets would be harmful or 
substantial, section 301(f) draws a bright line to avoid any regulatory 
impact whatsoever.
  There is an important policy at work here. The risk associated with 
wide administrative powers over technology issues in an era of rapid 
technical change is that premature or overbroad Government standards 
may interfere in the market-driven process of standardization or impede 
technological innovation itself. American industry has solved 
compatibility problems, and created workable standards, in the VCR, 
personal computer, compact disk, and other industries without any 
Government involvement. Markets drive interoperability much better, and 
far faster, than regulatory agencies could ever achieve. Where would we 
be today if the FCC had stepped in to set compatibility standards for 
personal computers in the early 1980's? We'd be without Windows '95, or 
the Mac, or even DOS, because all of these operating systems arose as 
the result of marketplace forces.
  My amendment, which I am proud to report is included verbatim in the 
final text of the Telecommunications Act of 1995, prevents us from 
overregulating in the new computer and communications markets of the 
1990's. We may yet be a few decades away from the totally automated 
home of the ``Jetsons'' cartoon, but with the help of section 301(f) 
we're one step closer to the smarthouse of tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, a number of Members, on both sides of the aisle, played 
important roles in supporting my amendment at the Commerce Committee 
level and during the conference committee negotiations. I very much 
appreciate this bipartisan support, and thank my colleagues for 
insisting that the final conference report include the full text of the 
provision as originally introduced by me and as passed by the House 
last August. I urge the House to pass the Telecommunications Act of 
1995 and to apply its basic principles of open markets and competition 
to the important area of compatibility standards.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Question: How many know whether or not there will be an unprecedented 
increase in media concentration if this measure becomes law?
  Answer: Not many.
  But does it?
  Well, the answer is that at a time that we need greater and more 
diverse media voices, this measure before us will eliminate the 
national radio and television ownership rules, scale back local 
concentration rules, and allow corporations to simultaneously control 
broadcast and cable systems.
  Disheartening? I think so. Can it be improved? Of course. How do we 
do it? Send it back to the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report.
  Years ago, seems like longer than it was, but in 1991 the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] and I introduced legislation to eliminate 
the cable-telco cross-ownership language, to encourage competition 
between cable and telephone and allow them into each other's 
businesses, neither one of them particularly happy with that prospect 
at the time, and now we have come to this day.
  In looking back, when Al Swift and Tom Tauke introduced a bill to 
eliminate the modified final judgment, we worked very hard on that 
issue, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the chairman, and I want to express my 
sincere appreciation to them for their hard work in the past and what 
has brought us here today.
  The same kind of thing for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], 
the chairman, who has shown enormous leadership, and my good friend, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], who unfortunately will be 
retiring but has just put in hours and hours of work and leadership to 
get us where we are today. I think all of us in this House owe Jack 
Fields a great deal of gratitude for where we are today.
  The heart of this bill is to eliminate monopolies and to encourage 
this great competitive marketplace that we have going for us. Our 
answer is, let the competition begin.
  Today, we make history, the first major rewrite of telecommunications 
legislation in this country in over 60 years. Driven by good public 
policy and an explosion of new technology, we stand at the threshold of 
the 21st century in communications with America as the undisputed 
leader.
  Mr. Speaker, in many ways it is a relief to be approaching the end of 
this protracted process. This conference report has been a long time 
coming--62 years, in fact--and while the bill falls a bit short of my 
expectations, there can be no doubt that it represents landmark reform 
of the Nation's telecommunications law.
  This legislation is ambitious in its vision and breadth. It is a 
vision of deregulation and head-to-head competition. It opens up all 
communications markets to competition, including the local telephone 
and cable television industries.
  The measure's provisions allowing telephone companies and cable 
companies to compete in each other's markets are based on legislation I 
introduced in 1991 with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher]. Our 
measure envisioned the convergence of these technologies, and our 
initiative constitutes the heart of this reform  effort, if I may say 
so myself.

  The bill is antiregulatory and antibureaucratic in philosophy. Where 
there are regulations or mandates, they exist in most cases for the 
express purpose of promoting competition and ensuring the unencumbered 
operation of market forces.
  As is the case with politics, open business competition is not always 
a pretty process. There will be dislocations and miscalculations. 

[[Page H1162]]
Certainly, there are those who would prefer the old way of sheltered 
monopolies and intense Government regulations. But in the end, the more 
efficient markets, and innovations that protected incumbents would 
never undertake.
  As an aide, Mr. Speaker, there are some important issues which have 
been left somewhat vague in the conference report, in order to allow 
the FCC the latitude to implement them effectively. Some specifics have 
been outlined, however. In the case of the joint marketing provisions, 
for example, it is my understanding that the offering of local and long 
distance service under the same brand name would be permissible, so 
long as they are fully separate and those services are not jointly 
advertised. In the case of local marketing agreements, I note that the 
language allows LMA's to continue. It is important that broadcasters 
are granted the flexibility that these innovative agreements make 
possible. They help ensure the continuation of free, over-the-air local 
broadcasting.
  The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the conference report could have been 
even more deregulatory than it is. It is not the revolutionary measure 
originally introduced in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 
Finance. Unfortunately, the regulators and the protectionists left 
their imprint on this bill, as well.
  However, considering that we have a regulation-minded administration 
at the White House and rather narrow Republican majorities in Congress, 
it is an excellent step in the right direction. And in those areas 
where we did not meet expectations, there will be future opportunities 
to address shortcomings.
  Mr. Speaker, enactment of this legislation will mean more choices, 
lower prices, and better services for all telecommunications consumers. 
It will mean more economic growth, more jobs, and a more competitive 
U.S. economy. I urge the support of all Members.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey], for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, when we were working on this bill back in the Committee 
on Commerce, there were only a handful of us who voted against the bill 
coming out of committee. I say a handful, 5 fingers, there were 5 of 
us. When we came to the floor, again, we had many concerns with the 
chairman's mark.
  I will tell Members that during this process, even thought people on 
both sides of the aisle, certainly the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley], chairman, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], chairman 
of the subcommittee, tried to work very hard in a bipartisan manner to 
include all of our concerns, I did not think we could get to the point 
where we would have a bill that is acceptable.
  I will tell Members that while the bill that we are taking up here, 
this conference report, is certainly far from what this Member of 
Congress would call ideal, I will support this bill. I think that we 
have now seen how the process is supposed to work, how we are supposed 
to have give-and-take, we are supposed to hear from industry groups who 
have concerns.
  The good Lord knows we all heard from industry groups and from 
consumer groups. I would have to think that in my brief period here in 
this Congress, this is the most lobbied piece of legislation certainly 
that I have seen. I hope it is the most lobbied piece I will ever see. 
I do not want anybody to try and break these records.
  But with this bill we are going to create jobs. In my State of 
Pennsylvania we are guessing, in talking to industry sources, that in a 
10-year period we may create 140,000 much needed jobs, and other States 
across this Nation will see similar things.
  I would simply ask all of my colleagues to give due consideration to 
supporting this conference report.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] who has brought a great energy and 
intellectual impact to this legislative process.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree that this bill is substantially improved from 
the one that originally came before us, although the notion of passing 
a bill which has had added to it at a very unusual point in the 
process, namely, in the conference, language that is explicitly and 
admittedly unconstitutional because of its restriction on using the 
word ``abortion'' is an interesting way to legislate, and that is one 
reason that I do not like the bill.
  But another, as I said before, is the extent to which it is so unfair 
to the Republican leadership. It seemed to me that Speaker Gingrich and 
his arguments against censorship was entitled to more consideration 
that he got from his side of the aisle. I thought the Speaker was right 
when he opposed censorship and I am sorry to see that he has given in.
  But I am even more distressed at the end of my brief alliance with 
the Senate majority leader. The Senate majority leader had been 
strongly, in the last few days and few weeks, objecting to giving away 
access to the TV spectrum, an asset that now belongs to the public and 
is worth many billions of dollars--we are not sure how much--and he 
said, ``Don't give it away. Let's auction it off.'' I thought he was 
right and I was hoping we would get somewhere.
  Because this bill essentially gives it away. I know we are being told 
that we should all pretend that the bill does not really do that, just 
as we should pretend that the bill does not really have some language 
in there restricting your ability to talk about abortion on the 
Internet. But the fact is that this legislation was drafted with the 
intention of giving a substantial public asset to the broadcasters. I 
believe it is in error.
  I would hope we would defeat this today, send it back to conference, 
let them simply put in auction language. Let us auction off this very 
valuable aspect of the spectrum, have the billions of dollars for the 
public. It will be billions less than we would have to take out of 
Medicare or Medicaid or the environment.
  I am afraid that we are setting the precedent here or confirming the 
precedent here that free enterprise as the Republicans see it is for 
the poor. Because today by giving away billions of dollars to the 
networks, later by making similar presents to wealthy agricultural 
interests, we will have confirmed that free enterprise and an absence 
of subsidy are rules by which the poor and the working class should 
live. But when it comes to substantial and important wealthy economic 
interests, whether they control the sugar and peanut industry or 
whether they are networks, they will be treated quite in contradiction 
to the principles of free enterprise, quite without regard to free 
market, but instead will be given these kind of subsidies.

                              {time}  1515

  Giving away this very substantial asset that the unused portions of 
the spectrum represents for no money and after they use it for a while, 
maybe they will think about giving it back, I doubt very much that they 
are going to want to do it, is a very grave error.
  Auctions of the unused parts of the spectrum have proved very 
successful, and it is a grave error not to include them here.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and my 
congratulations to him, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and 
certainly to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], for putting 
together this very difficult piece of legislation.
  When the AT&T system was broken over a decade ago, everybody assumed 
that local telephone service was a natural monopoly. Today, thanks to 
rapid technological and market changes, that is no longer the case.
  As States around the country are proving, competition is much better 
than regulation of telephone markets by our Government bureaucrats.
  Just as we are replacing regulations for telephone companies, so are 
we with cable companies. Based on provisions that I authored in the 
House-passed legislation, this conference report ends Federal 
regulation of the entertainment tier of cable. Competition from the 
telephone companies and many new entrants will replace one of the most 
needless sets of regulation of the entertainment tier of cable 
television leaving regulation in place for the so-called life line tier 
of cable. Competition from the telephone companies and many new 
entrants will replace one of the most needless sets of regulation this 
Congress had ever passed. 

[[Page H1163]]

  With enactment of this legislation, we finally get the Government out 
of the job of regulating MTV and the cartoon channel. We have finally 
moved out of the dark ages to provide competition rather than 
regulation to the benefit of the consumers of this country.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I think we all today owe a special thanks 
to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields], to my good friends, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], for 
all of their hard work and efforts on behalf of all of us here in 
America for this wonderful piece of legislation.
  I would like to ask the people of America to pay attention, folks, 
because in the midst of all of our frustration over budget battles and 
partisan politics, a new day has dawned with this legislation.
  Today's vote on this historic legislation lays out the welcome mat 
for the 21st century and for those of us in rural America, it ensures 
we have a place at the table.
  As a representative of 25 rural counties in Arkansas, my primary 
concerns during these negotiations and among the conferees has been 
ensuring that people who live in rural areas will have access to the 
same advanced technology and competition that we are seeking for the 
country and at affordable prices. Today, I am extremely pleased with 
the results of endless hours of talks.
  By extending the definition of universal service, we have provided 
the means to ensure the coordinated Federal-State universal service 
system provides consumers living in rural and high-cost areas with 
access to advanced telecommunication services at reasonably comparable 
rates. By adding guarantees to the requirements for receiving universal 
service money, we have also made sure rural consumers will be served.
  The waives and modifications created in both the Senate and House 
bills were carefully blended in conference to balance desires to 
promote competition in local exchange areas while ensuring smaller 
providers have necessary flexibility to comply with the bill's 
interconnection requirement.
  I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on these and 
many other issues.
  I also would like to recognize the House's wisdom in accepting the 
Snowe-Rockefeller provision in the Senate bill to supplement distance 
learning and telemedicine. We included similar language in our bill 
last year. I am pleased my colleagues in the House took the time to 
educate themselves about the infrastructure we need to educate our 
children.
  This is a bill we can all be proud of. I certainly encourage all of 
my colleagues to support it.
  My primary concern during negotiations among conferees has been 
ensuring that people who live in rural areas will have access to the 
same advanced technology and competition that we're seeking for the 
country--and at affordable prices.
  Today, I am extremely pleased with the results of endless hours of 
talks. By expanding the definition of universal service, we have 
provided the means to ensure that the coordinated Federal-State 
universal service system provides consumers living in rural and high-
cost areas with access to advanced telecommunications services at 
reasonably comparable rates. By adding guarantees to the requirements 
for receiving universal service money, we also have made sure that 
rural consumers will be served.
  The waivers and modifications created in both the Senate and House 
bills were carefully blended in conference to balance the desire to 
promote competition in the local exchange area while ensuring that 
smaller providers have the necessary flexibility to comply with the 
bills' interconnection requirements. I appreciate the chairman's 
willingness to work with me on these issues.
  I also would like to recognize the House's wisdom in accepting the 
Snowe-Rockefeller provision in the Senate bill to supplement distance 
learning and telemedicine. We included similar language in H.R. 3636 
last year, and I'm pleased that my colleagues in the House took the 
time to educate themselves about the infrastructure we need to educate 
our children. We have crafted a bill that will enable doctors in Little 
Rock to read x rays from the Ozarks while students in Piggott will be 
able to use the Library of Congress in Washington for their term 
papers.
  On a lighter side, this bill will give consumers more entertainment 
choices. It's been a long road toward creating the parameters for the 
information superhighway, and I congratulate Chairmen Dingell, Markey, 
Fields, and Bliley for their leadership. Special thanks also are due 
staffers David Leach, Andy Levin, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Cathy Reid, 
Mike Regan, and Michael O'Rielly.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the industries involved in this bill, 
oh, have we heard from the industries. We have heard from the lobbyists 
that the industries have hired, oh, have we heard from the lobbyists. 
We have heard from the consultants that the lobbyists have hired. We 
have heard from the law firms, we have heard from all of them. Someone 
said, ``We never want to hear from them again.'' Well, you will not for 
about 50 years, because that is how long it will take for us to get 
around to another communications act.
  Why did you hear from them? What did you hear from the consumers? Oh, 
them? Well, what did you hear from the citizens? Oh, yes, right, John.
  Well, here is what they said, this is a $70 billion giveaway to 
broadcasters in this bill. I like broadcasters, folks. But the bill 
contains a provision which gives current broadcasters a block of 
publicly owned radio spectrum to increase their revenues by providing 
several free and pay-per-view channels, paging transmission and other 
nonprogram services without giving the public anything in return. Now, 
that from the Consumers Federation of America. Did they come and visit 
you? Have you received any visits from their lobbyists? I do not think 
so.
  So what we are doing, ladies and gentlemen, in broad daylight, and I 
know we are sober, we are giving corporate welfare to a broadcast 
industry which is already among the most powerful. This gift is 
especially outrageous at a time when we propose massive budget cuts for 
scores of important social programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would just like to 
commend the chairman of the committee for the great work he has done 
and also to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields], who is retiring.
  I would like to echo a comment one of my colleagues said, this is a 
great opportunity for bipartisanship, and I hope the American people 
are watching and the people in the audience, and, of course, the people 
here on the floor. This is a bipartisan opportunity.
  I would like to put into the Record two colloquies with the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields], and this deals with the duopoly rulemaking. I would like to 
engage the gentleman in a colloquy.
  Has he read the duopoly rulemaking that I gave him that I can make 
part of the Record here today?
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, I have read the 
clarification of local television station ownership provisions. The 
gentleman is correct in the statements that are made.
  Mr. STEARNS. Since the rule was last revised, the local media 
marketplace has undergone a breathtaking transformation. So I think 
this is important. Also, has the gentleman, the subcommittee chairman, 
had the opportunity to read the statement concerning the must-carry 
provision? It is my understanding there is language within S. 652 which 
requires all must-carry challenges submitted to the FCC to be resolved 
within 120 days. Is that correct?

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, that is 
correct, and I have examined the remainder of your colloquy.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am making part of the Record three 
documents.

[[Page H1164]]

  The documents referred to follow:
  Mr. STEARNS. Further I would like to state that broadcast stations 
are important sources of local news, public affairs programming, and 
other local broadcast services. This category of service should be an 
important part of the public interest determination to be made by the 
Commission when deciding whether a broadcast renewal application shall 
be granted by the Commission. To prevent local television broadcast 
signals from being subject to noncarriage or repositioning by cable 
television systems and those providing cable services, we must 
recognize and reaffirm the importance of mandatory carriage of local 
commercial television stations, as implemented by Commission rules and 
regulations.
  The following is the understanding and agreement referred to in the 
colloquy between Representative Fields and Representative Stearns:

       The conference report directs the FCC to conduct a 
     rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify 
     or eliminate its duopoly rule, which prevents ownership of 
     more than one television station in a market. Since the rule 
     was last revised, the local media marketplace has undergone a 
     breathtaking transformation. This has been characterized not 
     only by a large increase in the number of broadcast stations 
     (up one-third in the last decade alone), but more 
     significantly by an onslaught of new multichannel rivals to 
     traditional broadcasters, such as cable and satellite 
     systems, and soon, video dialtone networks.
       It is agreed that, when it considers revision of the 
     duopoly rule pursuant to this conference report, the FCC 
     should give serious weight to the impact of these changes in 
     the local television marketplace--changes which have left 
     broadcasters as single-channel outlets in a multi-channel 
     marketplace.
       It is also our intent that the FCC should revise the rule 
     as is necessary to ensure that broadcasters are able to 
     compete fairly with other media providers while ensuring that 
     the public receives information from a diversity of media 
     voices.
       It is also agreed that the FCC should consider granting 
     waivers for combinations in which at least one station is a 
     UHF and where the FCC determines that joint ownership, 
     operation, or control will not harm competition or the 
     preservation of a diversity of voices in the local television 
     market.
       As our numerous hearings demonstrated, today's local 
     television marketplace exemplifies the massive changes in the 
     competitive landscape that we've witnessed in many sectors of 
     communications. Viewers are no longer limited to a few TV 
     channels. Rather, consumers have--or soon will have--access 
     to dozens of cable channels, wireless cable, satellite and 
     video dialtone systems.
       Broadcasters compete with these multi-channel rivals for 
     viewers and ad dollars alike. In particular, interconnected 
     and clustered cable systems are now capable of offering 
     advertisers local spots throughout an entire local media 
     market, thus directly impacting the local broadcasting 
     market. Indeed, cable's share of local advertising revenues 
     increased by 80% between 1990 and 1993, and this rate of 
     increase is projected to continue for the foreseeable future.
       If we want free, over-the-air programming to survive and 
     thrive, we need to give broadcasters the flexibility they 
     need to compete effectively with their new multi-channel 
     rivals. To this end, the conference report grandfathers Local 
     Marketing Agreements, the innovative joint ventures that many 
     broadcasters have been using to meet the new competition.
       The need to relax the duopoly rule is illustrated by the 
     broadcast community's experience with LMAs. These joint 
     ventures enable broadcasters to take advantage of the 
     economies of scale and generate synergies that provide more 
     outlets for free and innovative local and other programming. 
     LMAs have enabled new stations to get on the air and 
     struggling stations to stay on the air.
       Beyond grandfathering LMAs, this legislation charges the 
     FCC to take a hard look at the duopoly rule, and Congress 
     could not be more clear; the FCC is directed to determine 
     whether to retain, modify, or even eliminate its limitations 
     on television station ownership in a local market.
       It is my position that the FCC should waive or eliminate 
     the duopoly rule in circumstances cases where a proposed 
     combination involves at least one UHF station and there is no 
     demonstration of harm to completion or diversity of voices in 
     the market. Congress needs to closely monitor the FCC to 
     ensure that it revises the duoploy rule in recognition of the 
     changes in the local television marketplace and of the need 
     to give local broadcasters some flexibility to respond and 
     succeed in the challenging multi-channel marketplace.
       The 1934 Communications Act--accompanied as it is by a 
     hodgepodge of FCC decisions and court rulings--is outdated. 
     As we craft the communications policy that is going to carry 
     us into the 21st Century, we must ensure that it reflects the 
     flexibility of an ever-changing marketplace.

  We are standing at the precipice of a bold new era of communications, 
an era whose full impact we can only speculate about. But we can say 
this: That era holds great promise for America, economically and even 
politically. It will be an era in which America's already significant 
lead in communications technology continues to expand. It will be an 
era in which Americans will have greater access to information and 
education than ever before. And it will be an era in which democracy 
itself will be enhanced as Americans gain powerful new ways to 
communicating directly with their elected representatives.
  For these reasons, this telecommunications bill represents one of the 
most important pieces of legislation Washington will consider this 
year. Unlike many bills before Congress, which concern the routine 
functions of government, the telecommunications reform legislation will 
help transform the very fabric of American society.
  This is no small task and is fraught with controversy, but there is a 
common thread that holds all the elements of this massive bill 
together: deregulation. The fact is, government intrusion in America's 
communications industry has held us back, stifling innovation, 
competition, and the ability of America to maintain its global lead in 
key technologies. While this legislation did much in the way of 
loosening the regulatory chokeholds in the areas of long distance and 
local phone service, and cable, more could have been done in the area 
of broadcasting.
  Broadcasting occupies a unique and critical position in the world of 
telecommunications. Broadcasters fulfill a number of important roles in 
their communities--reporting school closings, covering local news, and 
providing emergency information. In addition, broadcasting is unlike 
other communications technologies. Broadcasting is not only the only 
technology available to 100 percent of American households, the content 
it provides is free. The only cost is for a receiver.
  Not surprisingly, broadcasting remains the principal means Americans 
use to get the information and entertainment that make up an important 
part of their lives. In fact, broadcasting has the widest coverage of 
any media today. More households have television and radios--99 
percent--than have telephones--94 percent--or cable service--61 
percent. Broadcasting to this day is the one medium that reaches the 
whole country. It is precisely for this reason that we must ensure that 
broadcasting remains a vital component in the information age. We must 
provide broadcasters with the flexibility to compete effectively not 
only with each other but also with their competitors.
  In 1964, the FCC last revisited the duopoly rule which prohibits an 
entity for owning two television stations in a local market. In 1964, 
there were very few VHF stations and the FCC felt this rule was 
necessary to ensure diversity. Well, the video landscape has changed 
dramatically since the implementation of the 1964 duopoly rule.

  Americans have access to many over-the-air broadcast channels. In the 
last decade alone, the number of commercial broadcast stations has 
increased by nearly one-third. This increase in free over-the-air 
viewing options, coupled with the availability of a multitude of video 
outlets--cable, wireless cable, DBS and the imminent entry of telephone 
companies offering video dialtone--evidences the fact that the duopoly 
rule has outlived its usefulness.
  Serving local needs in an expensive endeavor. Relaxing the duopoly 
rule would allow station owners to achieve economies of scale by 
sharing equipment, accounting, and other common station costs. Saving 
on broadcasting costs would enable broadcasters to compete with 
themselves as well as other nonbroadcasting competitors. Keeping the 
duopoly rule freezes broadcasters as single channel providers who must 
compete with other multichannel providers.
  Broadcasters have long found cable to be a formidable rival for 
viewers, but now local broadcasters are losing market share for local 
advertising revenues, too. For years, because of fragmentation of 
ownership in local markets, cables' share of local ad revenues has 
lagged behind its rapidly increasing penetration and viewership. But 
increasingly, cable operators are creating marketwide interconnects 
capable of offering local spots on all the cable systems in a market. 
Moreover, in order to compete with phone companies, cable operators are 
clustering at a rapid pace so that they dominate an entire local 
market. Driven by these interconnects and clustering, cable's share of 
local advertising revenues increase 80 percent from 1990 to 1993.
  Because of the increased competition from fellow stations and other 
video providers, many broadcaster stations are marginal operations, 
particularly in the smaller markets, where, according to the FCC, 
stations lost on average $880,000 in 1991. Adding a further financial 
complication, the conversion to digital broadcasting will be stressful 
for these smaller market stations.
  In this increasingly competitive communications market, it is not 
fair if one competitor remains leashed to outdated regulations. This is 
what will happen if we do not relax the duopoly rule, while we 
unshackle many of the broadcasters' competitors.

[[Page H1165]]

  To respond to the challenges of today's media and advertising 
marketplace under the existing regulatory scheme, many television 
broadcasters have emulated their colleagues in radio and entered into 
innovative arrangements called local marketing agreements, or LMA's. An 
LMA is a type of joint venture that generally involves the sale of a 
licensee of chunks of air time on its station to another station, in 
the same or adjacent market, which then supplies the programming to 
fill that time and sell the advertising to support it.
  Such agreements enable separately owned stations to function 
cooperatively, achieving significant economies of scale via combined 
sales and advertising efforts, shared technical facilities and 
increasing stations access to diverse programming. I'm pleased this 
legislation recognizes the benefits of LMA's and grandfathers them. By 
grandfathering LMA's, we are allowing broadcasters to continue to use a 
tool that has helped them meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.
  My own State, Florida has 5 LMA's which have generated positive 
synergies. Channel 26 in Naples could not afford a real news department 
until it entered into an LMA with channel 20 in Ft. Meyers. Now it has 
an outstanding news operation. This particular joint venture shows how 
LMA's can increase the amount of local news programming. There are many 
other examples of LMA's across the country that evidence the benefits 
of such arrangements.
  While I am disappointed the conference did not accept the House 
provisions which relax the duopoly rule, I am confident that the FCC 
will, in its duopoly rulemaking, conclude that as this body did, that a 
1964 rule is no longer applicable to today and more important, 
tomorrow's video marketplace. We must not continue to deny local 
broadcasters the flexibility they need to meet the challenges of an 
ever increasingly competitive market. Broadcasters must have more 
relief if they are to play a meaningful role in the information age. 
While grandfathering LMA's is a start, it certainly is not enough. The 
best solution to ensure the continued viability of free, over-the-air 
broadcasting is to relax the duopoly rule.
  I am also disappointed with the radio provisions which are a 
disservice to those in the radio industry. While the House and Senate 
bills completely deregulated the radio industry, the conference took a 
giant step away from deregulation and forces the radio industry to 
attempt to compete with others with a 50 pound weight of needless 
regulation around its neck. I prefer the original House position which 
would have enabled all in the radio industry to prosper.
  While the Telecommunications Act improves upon the Pole Attachment 
Act of 1978, our legislation fails to completely redress this issue. We 
have worked together to forge a compromise, but certainly we could have 
gone further, allowing the free market to work.
  Again, while I am deeply disappointed with some provisions in this 
bill, I will support it because of the effect it will have on our 
economy. Overall, Congress cannot afford to let this opportunity slip 
through its fingers one more time. We must seize this opportunity and 
pass this ground breaking legislation now.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I did not have the privilege of 
participating in this year's debate, because I took a leave of absence 
from this committee. But truly I participated in the last, I do not 
know, 10 to 15 years that we tried to do a bill, and for this reason I 
think enormous credit must go to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and I think 
especially the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who have over the 
years produced a bill that brings back open competition, deregulation. 
This is a historic bill, probably the most important bill that will do 
something for people, bring technology into people's homes, opens up 
telephone service, cable.
  This is something that I think, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] has pointed out, perhaps is not perfect, but it is something 
that once again, when the history is written of this Congress, I think 
this bill is going to be considered landmark legislation, and again, 
while I did not participate this year, I remember the hundreds and 
thousands of hours of markups when something did not work, and again, I 
want to commend the chairmen, but especially those on my side of the 
aisle, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for truly historic efforts in voting a 
historic bill.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this historic 
telecommunications reform legislation which is the product of a 
bipartisan effort over many years. In particular, I would like to 
commend Chairman Bliley, Subcommittee Chairman Fields, Ranking Member 
Dingell, and Mr. Markey of Massachusetts for their spirit of 
cooperation and commitment to passing quality legislation.
  This legislation, which will serve as the foundation for America's 
communications future, meets the necessary balance of private and 
public cooperation in setting the rules for competition in all 
communications markets and protecting consumers.
  This telecommunications reform legislation will play a major role in 
bringing the benefits of the technological revolution closer to all 
Americans.
  Although, Congress can ensure universal access, it cannot guarantee 
success. I challenge all Americans to take advantage of historic, new 
technology to boost its economic fortunes.
  The nature of the telecommunications industry is inherently 
susceptible to large degrees of commercial concentration. I am 
confident this bill combines private sector mechanisms necessary to 
ensure all residents the highest quality of services while maintaining 
Government safeguards to ensure open competition and policies that 
empower children with information technology by creating incentives for 
public entities like schools, libraries, hospitals and community 
centers.
  This bill embraces sensible deregulation and market-driven 
competition. It is a welcome dose of bipartisan compromise that will 
yield unlimited benefits in the form of job creation and the 
disbursement of the information age.
  Deregulation is necessary where appropriate and prudent. However, 
Government oversight is necessary to ensure the public good such as 
providing universal service to poor, rural and minority customers.
  This legislation ensures that all providers contribute their fair 
share to supporting universal telephone service in residential and 
rural areas. It preserves the principle that everyone should have 
access to telephone service, regardless of their ability to pay the 
cost to provide that service.
  As Americans have done so many times in our history, we enter the 
information age in the belief of open markets and free competition. As 
we stand amidst the apprehension of the unknown and the excitement of 
discovery, we accept the challenges of the future and the 
responsibility of inevitable obstacles.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Berman], who has done extremely important work on 
the antitrust provision in this bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the conference report appropriately includes 
a strong, independent role for the Justice Department in evaluating 
applications by RBOC's to provide long distance service.
  The FCC must consult with the Attorney General in determining whether 
RBOC entry is in the public interest, a requirement designed to ensure 
that the FCC gives proper regard to the Justice Department's special 
expertise in competition matters and in making judgments regarding the 
likely marketplace effects of RBOC entry into the competitive long 
distance markets.
  In fact, acknowledging the importance of the antitrust concerns 
raised by such entry and to check any possible abuses of RBOC market 
power, the bill specifically provides that the FCC accord substantial 
weight to the DOJ's views on these issues.
  I am pleased that we have secured the Justice Department's role as 
the country's antitrust expert by ensuring that its position is given 
serious substantive consideration on the merits by the FCC as well as 
in any ensuing judicial proceedings.
  However, I am gravely concerned that provisions in title V of the 
conference report, in particular, sections 502 and 507, are 
unconstitutional.
  In section 507, by extending to the internet clearly unconstitutional 
underlying law, we are enacting an unconstitutional abortion gag rule.
  As a member of the conference committee, I would like to review the 
procedural history of the adoption of the online indecency prohibition 
in section 502.
  The House conferees first voted to approve a substitute amendment 
offered by Representative Rick White which contained a Miller-adapted 
``harmful to minors'' standard, rather 

[[Page H1166]]
than an indecency standard as the basis of liability under Section 
223(d) of Title 47. The harmful to minors standard would have 
criminalized exposing children to online pornography such as Playboy or 
Penthouse without chilling entirely nonpornographic, but offensive, 
expression. However, the House conferees then approved by a 17-to-16 
vote an oral amendment offered by Representative Goodlatte to replace 
the ``harmful to minors'' standard in the White substitute with a then-
unspecified indecency standard.
  After that vote, Representative White put forward a proposal to 
supporters of the Goodlatte amendment to define the indecency standard 
to include the third prong of the Miller-Ginsberg ``harmful to minors'' 
test. The proposal was to include statutory language clarifying that 
the indecency standard included only material that ``taken as whole, 
lack[s] serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for 
minors.'' I and others supported this proposal in an effort to avoid 
criminalizing display of valuable material that might nevertheless be 
considered ``patently offensive'' according to the standards of some 
local communities. However, the proposal was rejected by leading 
supporters of the Goodlatte amendment. They instead reduced the 
Goodlatte amendment to writing by incorporating the FCC broadcast 
definition of indecency into the House offer to the Senate. That 
indecency formulation was accepted by the Senate conferees, and will 
now become part of this legislation.
  No hearings were held by any committee of jurisdiction with regard to 
the constitutionality of the indecency standard adopted by the 
Conference Committee or the least restrictive means by which to 
implement such a standard.
  I regret that there were no hearings on this issue because I believe 
that we have overlooked serious constitutional problems with applying 
the indecency standard to the online medium. The least restrictive 
means test to which the courts subject indecency restrictions requires 
us to consider carefully how the restriction applies to the medium in 
question and whether less intrusive alternatives would achieve the 
governmental interest in protecting children. Having failed to engage 
in this inquiry and analysis, we have a conference report which assumes 
that the broadcast indecency standard can simply be applied wholesale 
to displays of online content.
  While I believe that we have made progress in some respects through 
the adoption of the conference compromise on Internet content, I fear 
that our failure carefully to consider the least restrictive 
alternative test may result in the invalidation of section 223(d), a 
concern expressed to me in a letter from the Department of Justice. 
This letter was sent to all the conferees and explained that the 
indecency prohibition adopted by the conference was constitutionally 
suspect, and stood a greater risk of being found unconstitutional than 
the harmful to minors standard that was supported by 16 House 
conferees. In a hurried effort to appear tough on pornography we may 
well have approved an unenforceable legal standard.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Frisa].
  Mr. FRISA. Mr. Speaker, the Congress will soon pass the first 
overhaul of America's communications laws since 1934, when Americans 
gathered around the family radio for their news and entertainment. 
Today, as a result of this exciting new law, the very latest in 
technology will now be available and affordable to every American 
everywhere. So this legislation, which will breed competition and 
innovation and lower costs to all Americans, is good for the American 
people, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  (Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the conferees. This 
legislation is as significant as it has been controversial and complex, 
and it has required a tremendous effort on the part of the conferees to 
get us to the point where the conference report can be voted on today.
  This legislation will be a major boom to our economy and our 
constituents. My constituents, like others around the country, will be 
the beneficiaries of greater communications choices, lower costs, 
increased jobs, and economic well-being. The bill represents a 
substantial step in the right direction, and I believe it will strike a 
good balance between deregulation and consumer protection.
  As for the issues that have not been completely nailed down, such as 
foreign ownership rules and questions of interpretation and 
implementation, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
Committee on Commerce to ensure that the vision and balance intended in 
this bill is maintained.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], who has served with unusual distinction in 
his career on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues know me well enough to know that I 
seldom come to the floor to debate a bill when I do not know how I am 
going to vote on that bill.
  This is a bill which has some real advantages to it. I think we do 
need to increase the level of competition in the telecommunications 
industry, and this bill heads us in that direction. But there are also 
some very troubling things about this bill, and I am really having a 
hard time balancing those troubling aspects against the benefits of the 
bill.
  Would it be irresponsible of me to vote to give away the capital of 
the United States of America? That is in essence one of the things this 
bill does. The 70 billion dollars' worth of assets that the United 
States Government now owns is being given away to the richest people 
and industry in America under this bill. That is the spectrum value, I 
am told.
  So I am troubled, deeply troubled, by the notion that we could at the 
same time that we are taking $70, $100, $200 billion away from the 
poorest people in this country, be turning around, on the other hand, 
and giving away $70 billion of our assets. I am troubled by that. I 
hope I can get some guidance before the vote.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no giveaway in this bill. What we do is loan 
the spectrum to the broadcasters because they have to simulcast while 
they advance this new technology. That is, the current TV sets will not 
receive the digital signal, so they have to broadcast both digitally 
and analog.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time, and, if the 
gentleman will be patient, I think he will understand where I am coming 
from by the time I am finished.
  So they have to do this simultaneously. What we say is once this 
conversion comes, we reclaim the analog spectrum and we auction it off 
at that time. Nobody can tell you if the American people for sure will 
adopt this new technology, and nobody can tell you when they will do 
it; $70 billion is pulled out of the ether somewhere. There are no 
statistics to back it up.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Paxon].
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, this is truly an historic day for this body. 
It marks the beginning of a new era for America businesses and 
consumers that will result in the creation of millions of new jobs in 
the years ahead because of this legislation.
  Full and open competition will create new products and innovative 
services at the best prices for consumers. I think, most importantly, 
this bill recognizes one of our guiding principles, that competition is 
better than regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to give special thanks and appreciation to the 
chairs, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for their leadership in bringing this bill to the 
floor today. This is one of the most important days in this Congress.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the most important 
things in this telecommunications reform bill 

[[Page H1167]]
is the provision that I advocated when the bill was before the House 
some months ago, and that is affordable access to the Internet for 
schools. I would like to thank all of those Members of both sides of 
the aisle who fought for this and who kept with it in the conference, 
because this is one of the items in which no high-priced lobbyists were 
involved. No one was interested but the parents and the teachers of 
this country. It will make a tremendous difference, especially for 
children who come from less affluent families. Recently my hometown 
newspaper did an analysis of Internet access and test scores and found 
that for children in low-income neighborhoods whose families do not 
have a lot of money, their test scores rose dramatically just with 
their introduction to the Internet. So I think this is a stellar day 
for schoolchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that I was very angry when I 
heard that some people would jeopardize this very important bill by 
putting in extraneous measures having to do with abortion. I would like 
to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and the gentlewoman 
from New York, [Mrs. Lowey], who disagree on the underlying issue, for 
clarifying that these provisions are unconstitutional and now the 
legislative history is such that they are not valid.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], before the dean's explanation has taken 
hold.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to get some 
further clarification here, because the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley], has indicated that they are not giving this spectrum away. Am 
I clear that in the process of loaning this spectrum, when you get back 
what you are going to get back from them ultimately, they are giving 
you the old capacity back, not the new capacity?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BLILEY. That depends. If they use the new capacity, yes, we will 
get the old back. If they do not use the new capacity, we will get the 
new back.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if they 
use the new capacity, would that not be the equivalent of giving you 
back what would be the virtual equivalent of black and white television 
as opposed to much more advanced capabilities, the equivalent of color 
television?
  I know it is beyond that, but I am simplifying it. We are not talking 
black and white versus color, but capacitywise, is it not substantially 
more?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the spectrum, we do not know what they will be used for 
when it is auctioned off. It could be used for many things. But it will 
bring a far better price than if you do it speculatively now, because 
the broadcasters will have to spend some $10 billion for new equipment 
in order to broadcast a digital signal while they do the simulcast.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLILEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the old 
spectrum is inordinately less valuable than the new digital spectrum?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it may or may not be. We 
will have to see.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very regrettable red herring. We have now a 
system of analog broadcasting for television. It is possible to develop 
a system of digital broadcasting in which we get a superior signal, 
both as to sound and as to picture. We are trying to move ourselves 
from this analog system to the superior digital system and to achieve 
the benefits which will flow from that kind of use.
  To do so, we have seen that the Federal Communications Commission has 
made available a block of spectrum which will be made available to each 
of the broadcasters so that they can use it for going from analog to 
the new digital system, and they will continue to use the analog system 
which they now have during the time that the changeover takes place.
  There are literally hundreds of millions of television sets in this 
country that have to be changed from the analog to digital. At the 
conclusion of the entire process, one of these existing sets of signals 
will be returned to the Federal Government. They will be unimpaired 
because the spectrum is a system of availability of receiving signals.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to my good friend very quickly, it 
is the anticipation that the V-band is going to be cleared. The U-band 
will be packed, which will add value to the return of that analog 
spectrum. It is arguable that this will be more valuable spectrum.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the spectrum will come 
back to the Government at the conclusion, either the digital or the 
analog, and the citizens will during that time have a chance to change 
over to the new kind of television sets. The broadcasters will be able 
to convert to the new kind of broadcasting system.
  The country will achieve the enormous benefit of this set of events, 
and the public will receive the opportunity to make the changeover in 
an orderly fashion in a way which benefits everybody. The taxpayers 
will gain. There is no giveaway of anything.
  At the conclusion of this time, the broadcasters will have the same 
amount of spectrum they have now and an orderly changeover to a 
superior system of broadcasting will have taken place during this 
period.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The 
one thing that surprises me is that the Republican Party has 
apparently, with regard to this question of how to use the new 
spectrum, so little confidence in the free market. We hear about the 
free market from time to time, but because a very valuable industry, 
the broadcasting industry, wants to get the first use of it for 
nothing, and that is what we are talking about, this valuable part of 
the spectrum, yes, the broadcasting industry will be allowed, for free, 
to do the experimentation, and then maybe at the end they will give 
back the other part of it.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina was right.

                              {time}  1545

  Whatever happened to the free market? Is not the best way to decide 
how to use this new spectrum that will become available, whether it is 
for digital TV or for some other purpose, to let us auction it off?
  Mr. Speaker, earlier it was said all elements of industry liked this 
bill. I have no particular beef with the industry, but I would suggest 
that when all elements of industry like the bill, probably the 
taxpayers and the consumers have reasons to worry.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, why do we have to give the broadcasters spectrum not 
being used for free, over-the-air TV? It is a gift, no matter how it is 
described. It is a huge, charitable, wealthy, corporate gift.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, now that I have heard all 
the explanations, I would say that this is like giving away the dirt 
road and the interstate highway, and, once this is all over, we are 
going to be given back the dirt road to auction off the somebody else.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can help set the record 
straight. Our bill does not give away spectrum to the broadcasters to 
do anything with other than to broadcast over the air in this 
transition from one technology to the other. And then it requires the 
return of the old technology spectrum to the people of the United 
States.
  Second, the bill provides that, if the broadcasters should use any of 
that spectrum for any purpose other than 

[[Page H1168]]
over-the-air broadcasting, they have to pay for it like everybody else. 
That is what the bill currently says.
  One final point: The issue of a broadcast spectrum is tied up with 
something called the public interest standard. It has to do with the 
trade we made a long time ago to licensed broadcasters who operate 
under a public interest standard, a relicensing by the FCC, and a 
review of that licensing over time.
  If my colleagues want to change that policy, and some do, they ought 
not make it in a budget meeting; they ought to make it in the committee 
of jurisdiction where we examine what happens on television and what 
broadcasters do with the license they get to operate in the public 
interest standard. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and let us 
debate that issue in the committee of jurisdiction where it belongs.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Towns].
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], ranking member, and of course the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  I am pleased that this conference report contains a new initiative to 
assist in the development of capital funds for small businesses. This 
telecommunications development fund will provide low-interest loans to 
small businesses with $50 million or less through up-front spectrum 
auction payments. I would like to thank the leadership of the committee 
for bringing this momentous legislation forward and for supporting my 
efforts to assist small businesses.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the argument we hear against 
auctioning off the spectrum to the broadcasters, as we have just heard 
from my friend from Louisiana, after all, they operate with public 
interest obligations. I have been here with him 15 years, and that is 
the nicest I have ever heard him talk about public interest 
obligations.
  The broadcasters successfully work to reduce those public interest 
obligations to mean virtually nothing. The only time they raise them is 
when they can use them as an excuse to get the superhighway, as the 
gentleman from North Carolina said, for free. I do not think that my 
friend from Louisiana believes that that public interest standard will 
ever be amounting to much. It is simply a flag they wave so they can 
get this for free.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley] has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very, 
very important bill that is going to provide deregulation in an 
industry that is badly needed. We are going to finally bring the 
telecommunication policy of this country into the last half of the 20th 
century before we enter the 21st century.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to create millions of jobs, estimated 
over 3 million jobs due to the new competition and the new technologies 
that are going to be made available.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], 
the chairman, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the 
chairman of the conference, for making it possible for me to play a key 
role in working out an agreement that protects the rights of local 
governments to see that their zoning regulations are carried forward in 
making sure that, when new cell towers are located, they have the 
ability to determine in each locality where they are placed while 
fairly making sure that those locations do not interfere with 
interstate commerce and with the opportunity to advance this new 
technology.
  I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote 
for the conference report.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. White], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. WHITE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] for giving me the 
opportunity to be part of this bill.
  This is a good bill. It is an important bill. I would like to point 
out what sometimes gets lost when we talk about all the details. The 
main accomplishment of this bill is that it takes us from our current 
situation of regulated monopolies in many, many industries and takes us 
to an era of competition. That is the huge accomplishment of this bill. 
It is a very important accomplishment, and I think it is something we 
can all be proud of.
  There are several other issues this bill deals with. Like many good 
bills, this is not a perfect bill. I think we have a ways to go making 
sure that the Internet is protected under this bill. I think we ended 
up with the wrong standard for indecency. I think we have to make sure 
that the FCC does not have a role in regulating the Internet. I think 
that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and I have colloquy that we 
are going to submit for the Record on that issue. But on balance I 
think this is important, and I ask the gentleman from Texas if he has 
seen the colloquy and agrees with it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have 
reviewed that. He is accurate and I am supportive.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. I 
thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields] for letting me be part of this bill. It is a great 
bill, and I hope we adopt it.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, in reviewing section 602 of the bill as modified by the 
conference agreement, which deals with the preemption of local taxation 
for direct-to-home services, I wonder whether this provision should 
also include any present or future wireless service providers who 
transmit video programs to subscribers without using traditional wire-
based distribution equipment as the new local multipoint distribution 
services, or LMDS.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it sounds like essentially the same factual 
situation to me. I assure the gentleman that we would be willing to 
hold hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary on that subject later 
this Congress.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day. The legislation which we are 
considering has been constructed over a 4-year period. Much 
deliberation has been given to this legislation. Many issues so complex 
that they could not be resolved in brief periods of time had to be 
deliberated after much expert opinion over month-long periods.
  The product that we have out here on the floor is not perfect, but it 
is the blueprint for the information superhighway of the 21st century. 
Its most important component is that it uses competition as its core, 
as its soul.
  Everything in this bill is not perfect. The bill, in fact, guarantees 
that no company in any industry will any longer be able to rest 
comfortably knowing that they have a monopoly and that 
telecommunications or computer or long distance or software or whatever 
high technology industry that they seek to make their fortunes in.
  In addition, we ensure diversity. We ensure that consumers are going 
to have choices. There will be two wires at a minimum to almost every 
single home in the country, each wire able to perform every single one 
of the services. If you throw in the electric companies, which also 
have the capacity to do so, we are going to have a revolution which the 
smallest companies, the 

[[Page H1169]]
smallest software companies, that thousands and thousands of software 
companies and computer companies which represent the real job creators 
over the next generation will, then they can one way or the other get 
their product into the homes, into the businesses of every single 
person in this country.
  This is a revolution. It breaks down all the old models of one cable 
company, of one television company. It breaks new ground in a way that 
should make every Member of this Congress proud. It is not perfect, but 
it is the best overall blueprint that any country in the world has ever 
come up with. We have the lead in all telecommunications fields. This 
bill allows us to sprint out further and look behind us over our 
shoulder at No. 2 and No. 3 in the world.
  We should not delay yet another 2 years. Let us pass this bill.
  On the issue of spectrum, for each of us here in Washington there is 
a channel 4, a channel 7, a channel 9. Next to it is a channel 3, a 
channel 6, a channel 8. The broadcasters will be given channels 3, 6, 
and 8. They will convert over to digital on those channels, and then 
they have to give back the old channels here in Washington. Channel 4, 
7, and 9 must be given back, and then we can auction off those 
channels. They are only left with the same amount of band width as they 
have ever had.
  Let us not have this red herring to float out here on the floor. 
There is no digital spectrum, there is no analog spectrum. There is 
spectrum. You use digital equipment or analog equipment. The 
broadcasters need time to convert over to digital equipment. The 
spectrum is the same.
  I want to compliment, finally, the people who constructed this bill. 
On my staff, Colin Crowell and David Moulton who worked tirelessly. 
David Leach, chief staffer for the minority; Alan Roth and Andy Levin 
on our side. Mike Regan, Cathy Reid, Christy Strawman on the majority 
side. Michael O'Rielly, J.D. Derderian, Steve Cope.
  This bill was put together after thousands of hours of discussion. It 
is a very good bill for the future of this country. We will have to 
come back and revisit it again and again in order to ensure that we 
continue to perfect that which we seek for this country. But this bill 
is the best that any in the world have ever seen.
  We are breaking ground that Japan and Germany and France and England 
do not have the nerve to take. We are going to enter a brave new world 
where our companies will be forced to produce the best products, the 
best service at the lowest price and highest quality that will be sold 
around the world. Some companies will be winners, some will be losers.

                              {time}  1600

  Many more will be winners than losers. Our country ultimately will be 
the big winner. This is a good bill. It is one that this House should 
be proud of. It is a bipartisan product of work over a 4-year period.
  Again, I compliment the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman 
from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, and my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas, Jack Fields, for his hard and courageous work on this bill; the 
gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, chairman, once and future; and 
all the Members, minority and majority who have contributed to this 
process. It is something this House will be proud of.
  It will be, when we look back, the one product out of this 2-year 
period where all Members of Congress, when they are sitting in their 
rocking chairs, can point back to and say ``I was there when the 
blueprint of the 21st century was noted on the floor of the House of 
Congress.'' Vote ``yes'' on this telecommunications bill.
  Mr. Speaker, over a number of years, Congress has sought to update 
antiquated communications laws while remaining true to the three core 
principles of the Communications Act of 1934 that have guided 
communications policy for decades: universal service, diversity, and 
localism.
  These three principles have served our Nation well and have helped 
bring Americans the finest communications technology and service in the 
world. The challenge for policymakers is to reform the rules in a way 
that retains these core values as they are impacted by two new factors: 
rapid technological change and fierce competition.
  In many ways, the conference report on S. 652 makes great progress in 
accomplishing this task. In fact, many of the key policy proposals 
embodied in the legislation trace their roots to the Markey-Fields and 
the Dingell-Brooks legislation of the 103d Congress--H.R. 3636 and H.R. 
3626, which were approved by the House by an overwhelming 423 to 5 
vote. For example, it will help establish learning links to K-12 
schools, libraries, and hospitals. It contains expanded privacy 
protections for consumers. It unbundles set-top boxes and other 
interactive equipment so consumers can buy the equipment of their 
choice. It helps to ensure access by disabled persons to 
telecommunications equipment and services. The bill will make sure that 
universal service evolves over time and that all competitors contribute 
to the system. It allows the phone industry into the cable business and 
vice versa. It breaks down the last vestiges of monopoly control over 
local telephone service as a condition of Bell entry into new business 
opportunities. These were all elements of the Markey-Fields legislation 
of the 103d Congress.
  The conference report on S. 652 reflects a series of compromises 
between the House and Senate that resolve to my satisfaction the series 
of objections I raised to H.R. 1555 when it was approved by the House 
last August. The conference report on S. 652 being brought back to this 
body is a much-improved piece of legislation. It scales back or removes 
many of the problematic provisions of H.R. 1555 while retaining 
procompetitive, pro- consumer measures that I strongly support.
  Title I of the legislation will break down barriers to competition in 
the so-called local loop. Ridding the communications industry of the 
last vestiges of its monopoly past has long been a goal of mine. I 
believe strongly that we need to bring competition to every nook and 
corner of the telecommunications industry and break down monopoly 
barriers so that small companies and electronic entrepreneurs could get 
into the game, create jobs, and compete for consumers.
  My overarching policy objective in this telecommunications 
legislation has been to create jobs and choices for the American 
people. For this reason I have consistently opposed monopolies and 
worked to rein in monopoly power and abuses wherever they arise. Why? 
Because monopolies limit choices. Monopolies retard technological 
development. Monopolies do not avail consumers of the lowest prices and 
the highest quality.

  For me, competition has consistently been the preferred vehicle for 
bringing affordable and high-quality telecommunications technologies to 
the American consumer.
  The compromise bill will allow the regional bell operating Companies 
into the long distance business, telephone companies into the cable 
television business, and the long distance industry, cable industry, 
and others into the local phone business. Over the long term I believe 
that increased competition between and among these hitherto separate 
industries will create tens of thousands of jobs. Moreover, I believe 
that the real explosion in terms of job creation, innovation, and new 
services will come from the computer and software industry as it 
converges with the telecommunications industry and further expands 
high-technology networking in the country.
  The original House proposal would have deregulated cable systems 
within 15 months of the date of enactment. The pending legislation will 
deregulate the rates of most cable systems 3 years from now--in March 
1999. The rationale for deregulating cable systems at that point is due 
largely to the success of the Cable Act of 1992. Although the cable 
industry fought the provision vigorously, the Cable Act of 1992 gave 
emerging satellite competitors and others access to cable programming, 
making competition viable. I am encouraged by the progress that direct 
broadcast satellite companies and wireless cable companies are making 
in signing up customers and competing against incumbent cable 
operators. It is my hope that robust competition will develop between 
these industries by 1999 to an extent that sufficiently avails 
consumers of affordable marketplace choices for multichannel video 
programming.
  In addition, many of the cable provisions of the House bill that I 
found objectionable have been favorably resolved in the pending bill. 
The legislation no longer requires 3 percent of subscribers to complain 
to the FCC prior to inducing a rate review. Instead, franchising 
authorities may complain to the Commission after receiving consumer 
complaints. The legislation also does not contain provisions that would 
have generally and prematurely deregulated subscriber equipment.
  The legislation also requires the Commission to resolve challenges to 
must-carry status within 120 days after a request is filed with the 
Commission. Broadcast stations have historically been important sources 
of local news, public affairs programming, and other local broadcast 
services. This category of service is an important part of the public 
interest determination to be made by the Commission when 

[[Page H1170]]
deciding whether a broadcast renewal application shall be granted by 
the Commission. To prevent local television broadcast signals from 
being subject to noncarriage or repositioning by cable television 
systems and those providing cable services, I believe it is important 
to recognize and reaffirm the importance of mandatory carriage of local 
commercial television stations, as implemented by Commission rules and 
regulations.
  The conference report also contains provisions which would allow 
registered utility holding companies an exemption from the Public 
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 [PUHCA]. PUHCA is a complex statute 
that regulates the operations of large registered multistate electric 
and gas utility companies. It requires registered holding companies to 
obtain prior SEC approval before establishing affiliates, issuing 
securities, or entering into new lines of business. The act affects the 
ability of registered to enter into telecommunications because PUHCA 
restricts registered utility diversification into nonutility businesses 
by requiring such businesses to be functionally related to the 
utilities core business--i.e., at least 50 percent of such businesses 
must serve core utility functions such as internal business 
communications.
  PUHCA was enacted to deal with the fact that State PUC's cannot 
effectively regulate the operations of multistate utility holding 
companies with complex corporate structures and an ability to cross-
subsidize at the expense of captive ratepayers. While much has changed 
since PUHCA was enacted in 1935, the electric utility business remains 
a monopoly and there remains a temptation for self-dealing and cross-
subsidization at the expense of captive utility ratepayers.
  Many House conferees felt that unless we end the electric utilities' 
continued monopoly over electricity generation, we must retain certain 
controls and protections if we were to allow PUHCA-registered holding 
companies to diversify into telecommunications. We felt that PUHCA 
provisions of the Senate bill do not adequately address the threat of 
cross-subsidization or self-dealing at the expense of captive utility 
ratepayers.
  Despite our strong reluctance to including PUHCA-TELCO language in 
this bill, we were able to work out on an approach based on the EWG 
provisions of EPACT that would adequately protect consumers and 
investors. This compromise would:
  Require the FCC to certify a registered's telecommunications company 
is PUHCA-exempt for specific telecommunications purposes.
  Certification of the telecommunications entity is necessary to ensure 
that it is exempt from PUHCA solely for enumerated telecommunications 
activities.
  This is based on EWG model that has been highly successful, with over 
250 applications approved to date.
  Provide for state prior approval for converting existing rate-based 
facilities for use by the exempt telecommunications company.
  This protects electric consumers investment in facilities constructed 
for their benefit (otherwise such facilities might be transferred to 
the telecommunications affiliate at less than fair market value.
  This protects captive ratepayers from subsidizing telecommunications 
activities that don't benefit them.
  Grant the SEC authority to obtain risk assessment information 
regarding financings of the exempt telecommunications company so that 
it can assess a substantial adverse impact of such financings on the 
registered holding company, in light of total invested in core utility 
operations, telecommunications, exempt wholesale generators, and 
foreign utility companies.
  This will allow the SEC to take action to deny a proposed financing 
of an EWG, FUCO, or utility affiliate if it determines that the 
financial health of the registered is in danger as a result of 
telecommunications financings.
  Provide for prior State and local approval of affiliate transactions.
  This ensures captive ratepayers do not pay an inflated price for 
telecommunications service, due to the incentive to use a monopoly 
market, electricity, to subsidize entry into a competitive one, 
telecom.
  Assure regulators access to books and records and provide audit 
authority.
  This is necessary to ensure State and Federal regulators can examine 
all relevant utility and affiliates records to ensure cross-
subsidization is not occurring.
  Assure no preemption of State/local authority to protect electricity 
consumers.
  I believe that this is an acceptable compromise on this difficult 
issue, and I commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Schaefer] for their work on this matter.
  The conference report on S. 652 also contains a provision that I 
authored as part of H.R. 3636 in the last session of Congress and that 
was embodied by legislation authored by Chairman Bliley and myself in 
this session. Section 304 of the bill will unbundle set-top boxes, 
converter boxes, and other interactive communications equipment and 
make them available for purchase from third parties. I believe that 
this is a procompetitive, proconsumer provision that will enable 
computer companies, telecommunications equipment providers, and other 
entrepreneurs to innovate and sell new high-technology gadgets to 
consumers without having to sell out to the owner of the wire that 
delivers multichannel video programming. I believe this will help to 
replicate for the interactive communications equipment market the 
success that manufacturers of customer premises equipment [CPE] have 
had in creating and selling all sorts of new phones, faxes, and other 
equipment subsequent to the implementation of rules unbundling CPE from 
common carrier networks.
  The conference report on S. 652 is most improved in its treatment of 
mass media ownership issues. I had battled and fought against the mass 
media provisions of H.R. 1555 because I felt that such provisions 
indiscriminately repealed rules that helped protect important values 
such as localism and diversity. During floor consideration of H.R. 1555 
in August I successfully amended the bill to scale back the TV network 
audience reach from 50 percent to 35 percent and reinstated the 
broadcast-cable crossownership prohibition. The conference report 
states that the Commission's regulations on national ownership caps 
should be increased to the 35 percent level and that limitations on the 
number of stations one entity could own be eliminated. This policy 
decision reflects a carefully calibrated balance and I believe that the 
duly considered view of Congress on these matters should settle the 
issue for many years to come.

  With respect to the broadcast-cable crossownership rule, the 
conference report explicitly states to the FCC that repeal of the 
statutory prohibition shall not be interpreted as a signal to repeal 
the Commission's broadcast-cable crossownership rule or even to 
initiate a rulemaking to repeal the rule. The conference report 
expressly did not seek to wipe out the broadcast-cable crossownership 
rule and therefore the Commission is advised not to expend its limited 
resources reviewing this issue.
  Much improved is the provision eliminating local ownership limits on 
radio stations. Although both the House and Senate bills eliminated the 
local ownership limits of 4 stations per market but because of concerns 
expressed by myself and others on the conference committee, as well as 
by the Clinton-Gore administration, local limits were reinstated in 
conference. The conference report revises section 73.3555(a) of the 
Commission's regulations to provide for ownership limitations based 
upon market size. The conference report does not define the term 
``radio market'' and the Commission will need to apply a definition of 
such term as part of revisions contemplated by this section.
  I also applaud the fact that the bill includes two issues that I have 
long advocated. The conference report includes important new consumer 
privacy protections and also includes a provision similar to one that I 
authored as part of H.R. 3636 that will include links to schools, 
libraries, and hospitals as part of a telecommunications universal 
service obligation and contribution. Privacy and security concerns on 
the information superhighway will continue to grow as the network grows 
and as more and more personal information is digitized and rides on the 
highway. More work needs to be done in this area to protect 
transactional information and to ensure that people have every 
opportunity and right to protect their data with encryption 
technologies. I will continue to work on this issue but the privacy 
provisions of S. 652 are good ones and an important down payment for 
consumers.
  As many of you may know, establishing learning links to K-12 schools 
has long been a concern of mine and the conference report on S. 652 
will make such links affordable for every school in the country. I 
believe it is imperative that we link all the classrooms in the country 
because it is the only way that we can mitigate against a growing 
digital divide where some schools get access and others do not. We must 
bring all our kids along to the future. No nation can hope to prosper 
in a fiercely competitive global economy where information is the coin 
of the realm if it does not give the bottom 10, 15, or 20 percent of 
its society the Information Age tools necessary to compete for jobs in 
such an economy.
  Another benefit of this bill is the inclusion of the V-chip, an 
initiative I launched in 1993. The V-chip is the nickname of a feature 
which, when included in a television set, allows the viewer to block 
programming that is rated. Congress has moved forward with this 
provision because it is a technological solution to a problem facing 
parents everyday--how to effectively enforce standards in their own 
homes regarding what is suitable for their children to watch on 
television.

[[Page H1171]]


  I am personally very gratified that the provision sponsored in the 
House by myself, Representative Dan Burton, Representative John Moran, 
and Representative John Spratt, was chosen by the conferees as the 
basis for compromise. This has ensured that the development of a model 
rating system as envisioned by this bill will, under no circumstances, 
be imposed by rule on any broadcaster. In fact, under this bill, no 
program will ever be rated unless industry participants decide to do 
the ratings themselves. No government entity will ever rate a show; no 
government bureaucracy will ever rate a show; no government agency is 
empowered to sanction any broadcaster for refusing to rate a show.
  It is our hope that each segment of the television industry will 
eventually recognize that giving parents information that allows them 
to protect their children will improve, not harm, free, over-the-air 
broadcasting. It is simply an update of the on-off switch of the three-
network 1950's to the 500 channel universe of the coming century. 
Movies are being rated, computer games are being rated, the Internet is 
introducing screening devices, cable television is prepared to rate 
their shows, and it is inevitable that broadcast television will expand 
and refine the application of ``Parental Discretion Advised'' warnings 
to the whole range of shows considered potentially harmful to children.
  It will be several years before television sets include the V-chip. 
First, the industry must develop a ratings system. Second, the set 
manufacturers must build new sets to include the electronics to read 
the ratings. But every parent will be pleased to know that, the day 
President Clinton signs this bill, it will have been declared in the 
public interest for this country to warn parents of programming that 
could harm their kids and to provide parents the means to block such 
programming out of the home, if they choose, with this simple, ratings-
and-blocking device.
  Finally, I want to commend Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Chairman 
Fields, and other members of the conference committee for their 
excellent work in bringing together the compromises necessary to reach 
final agreement.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the insurance premium issue is not a red 
herring. It is a matter of both reality and public policy. If we were 
able to auction it to the networks, everyone has recognized it could 
generate billions and help balance the budget. This bill gives the 
insurance premium to the networks rent-free, and no Member will be able 
to justify this at a time when we are chopping Medicare in order to 
balance the budget.
  I want to thank Chairman Bliley for making the process of debate and 
consideration of this important economic bill open and bipartisan--for 
members of both the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.


                    LONG DISTANCE AND RELATED ISSUES

  I said at the beginning of this debate that the antitrust laws and 
the Antitrust Division must remain at the very center of the 
telecommunications debate. Antitrust law is synonymous with low prices 
and consumer protection--and that is exactly what we need in our 
telecommunications industry.
  The Antitrust Division is the principal government agency responsible 
for antitrust enforcement. Its role in the MFJ has given it decades of 
expertise in telecommunications competition issues. The Division has 
unrivaled expertise in making predictive judgments and in assessing 
marketplace effects. The FCC by contrast has no antitrust background, 
and is facing the threat of significant downsizing.
  This is why its so important that the Justice Department was given an 
enhanced role in reviewing possible Bell entry into long distance. 
Under the conference agreement, the FCC must consult with and give 
substantial weight to the views of the Justice Department regarding 
such Bell entry--this is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to 
meeting the overall public interest requirement concerning Bell entry. 
The final conference agreement therefore ensures that the Justice 
Department's views will be given serious substantive merits by the 
courts on appeal as well as the FCC.
  The Justice Department will be able to use whatever standard they 
believe is appropriate, including the so-called eight-c test under 
which Bell entry is not permitted into long distance or manufacturing 
unless there is no substantial possibility the Bell could use its 
market power to impede competition. It is also my understanding that 
the Department will retain its full statutory authority to represent 
the interests of the United States before the courts on appeal.
  The importance of the long-distance entry provisions are underscored 
by the very few narrowly drawn exceptions to meeting the entry 
conditions. The grandfather for previous MFJ waivers under section 
271(f) applies only to the particular Bell and the scope of particular 
activity addressed in the waiver. The exception for incidental services 
under section 271(b)(3) and 271(b) is to be narrowly construed. And the 
regulatory forbearance provisions set forth in new section 10 do not 
permit the FCC from forbearing enforcing the long distance entry 
requirements.
  It is also important to note that even after entry occurs, section 
271 applies separate affiliate requirements for at least 3 years in 
order to check potential market power abuses. And although some joint 
marketing is permitted by the Bells under these provisions, both the 
Bells and their affiliates would be subject to nondiscrimination 
requirements. And the Bell and its affiliate must also make the 
individual services that are jointly marketed available to competitors 
on the same terms they make them available to each other.

  In addition, the bill contains an all-important antitrust savings 
clause which ensures that any and all telecommunications merger and 
anticompetitive activities are fully subject to the antitrust laws. 
Telco-cable mergers and all other broadcast, media, or 
telecommunications transactions will be fully subject to antitrust 
review, regardless of how they are treated under the bill or the FCC.
  And the bill includes a very useful repeal of 47 U.S.C. 221(a) which 
could have exempted mergers between telephone companies from antitrust 
and other legal review. This was a holdover from the 1920's, an era 
when Federal telecommunications policy promoted competition over 
competition.
  I would also like to remind the Members that this legislation would 
not be possible had the Justice Department not broken up the old Bell 
monopoly in 1984. The 1984 MFJ--which broke the Bell System into AT&T 
and the seven regional Bells, and which has been so ably supervised by 
Judge Harold Greene for 12 years--has unleashed one of the most 
significant competitive forces in our economy.
  Since the MFJ opened up the long distance and manufacturing markets 
to competition, we have seen a 70-percent reduction in long-distance 
prices and an explosion in product innovation. The legislation rightly 
recognizes that it's time to open up the local loop to competition as 
well. And by maintaining the role of the antitrust laws, the bill helps 
to ensure that the Bells cannot use their market power to impede 
competition and harm consumers.


                              Other Issues

  However, aside from the long-distance provisions of the bill, which I 
support, I have a number of substantive concerns with the final 
conference agreement.
  The cable provisions allow for deregulation before the advent of 
competition, raising the specter of unregulated monopoly. Two 
Congresses ago we spent consideration time and energy in adopting 
legislation to protect consumers from price gouging, and we were 
finally able to pass the bill over President Bush's veto. This Congress 
the Republicans have decided that consumer protection must take a back 
seat to industry demands. Although a small concession to consumers was 
made by delaying the date of price increases until 1999, there is no 
guarantee there will be any cable competition by this time.
  The bill will also allow for an unprecedented increase in media 
concentration. At a time when we need greater and more diverse media 
voices, the bill will eliminate the national radio and television 
ownership rules, scale back local concentration rules, and allow 
corporations to simultaneously control broadcast and cable systems.
  The bill also places a number of heavy-handed burdens on the taxing 
and regulatory authority of State and local governments. The cities 
will no longer be able to tax direct broadcast services. Local 
governments are also forced to give up their power to regulate access 
agreements. Rather than grant the rights-of-way a city or county 
believes are in the public interest, they must comply with a new set of 
rules which come down from Washington. In doing so, the conference 
report completely ignores the new unfunded-mandate law.


                             general leave

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to include extraneous material on 
this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues: As I said before, the 
gentleman from Texas, Jack Fields, the chairman of the subcommittee; 
his vice chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, Mike Oxley, without whose 
diligent work we would not be here; for the 

[[Page H1172]]
wonderful cooperation on the part of the minority: the ranking member 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey; the 
ranking member on the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Dingell. The staff, as the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, has done yeoman work. 
They have worked weekends, they have worked nights, and I know they 
will be glad when this day is over, as we will be.
  I remember working with the gentleman back in the early 1980's, when 
Mr. Baxter and Mr. Brown reached an agreement. We came close to getting 
a bill then, but we were blocked at the end. One thing or another has 
frustrated us in every Congress since. Here we are on this historic 
day.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a bill that we can be proud 
of. Is it perfect? No, and it never will be, but bear in mind, this is 
the most extensive rewrite of telecommunications law in 60 years. Mr. 
Speaker, the reason it has taken 60 years is because it is complex. It 
is difficult. It is intricate. All of these players believe in 
competition, but they each feel they are entitled to a fair advantage.
  Through the diligent work of the committees and the conference, we 
think we have created as level a playing field as we know how to do. As 
we stand here, all of the players in this complex act support this 
bill; some, truly, more than others. But it is a great day. It will be 
competition. It will give the American consumer greater choice. We will 
be leading the cutting edge as we go into the 21st century as a result 
of this bill. It is the greatest jobs bill we are likely to pass in 
this decade.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for consumers. It provides 
a supermarket in the telecommunications industry with one stop shopping 
for cable and phone service if you wan it. This bill is good for our 
children. It provides incentives to bring technology and the Internet 
into our grade schools, middle schools, high schools, and libraries.
  Congress is--at last--taking into its own hands the deregulation of 
the telecommunications market which has been handled in a piecemeal 
fashion by the courts since the 1982 breakup of AT&T. Despite this 
inefficiency, States have been moving forward. In my home State of 
California, telephone companies have recently been allowed to offer 
local long-distance services and their local markets have been opened 
to facilities-based competition.
  With this conference agreement, we acknowledge the changes that are 
taking place in the marketplace an insure that the process by which all 
competitors compete is fair and evenhanded.
  I regret that I had to oppose the rule on this bill because of the 
unconstitutional language relating to abortion. I appreciate 
representative Lowey's efforts to clarify that everyone's first 
amendment rights should be protected on the Internet. In light of her 
efforts, I am now prepared to support final passage of this measure.
  I do want to point to one other concern however, relating to my 
district. The goal of this legislation is to create an environment in 
which new and expanded services are delivered to consumers. In some 
cases that can best be accomplished through the combined resources of 
smaller local telephone companies and local cable companies.
  Section 652 sets limitations on the size of the local telephone 
companies that may own more than a 10 percent interest in their local 
cable operator. It was my understanding that the intent of the 
legislation was to limit these activities to local telephone companies 
below tier-one companies in size.
  Further, section 652 sets forth conditions under which the FCC may 
grant a waiver from these restrictions if to do so is in the public 
interest and the local franchising authority approves. There may be a 
situation or two where a local cable company and local telephone 
company have been already negotiating a sale under current law but will 
find themselves facing a new set of rules before the sale is complete.
  If the FCC finds this to be in the public interest, particularly if 
we are talking about small, non-tier-one companies, in my view this is 
the kind of circumstance for which Congress has created the waiver.
  And since it is the intent of Congress to promote competition while 
encouraging localism, a circumstance in which a locally owned, non-
tier-one local telephone company is seeking to purchase a local cable 
system serving just part of its telephone service area, and the 
telephone service area is subject to competition or impending 
competition from large national and international telecommunications 
conglomerates, should be the kind of situation giving rise to a waiver.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lack of consistency in the boundaries of 
telephone service areas, cable franchising areas, and census bureau 
population boundaries. Consequently, the guideline in the bill of 
12,000 cable subscribers in an urbanized area should not be an obstacle 
to serving the public interest and should not restrict the FCC from 
granting waivers for providers serving more subscribers than the limit. 
Finally, if the FCC finds no anticompetitive effects to a proposed 
transaction, it should grant a waiver.
  I urge by colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote for this bill because it 
promotes competition and growth in the communications industry, and I 
believe that will benefit consumers.
  I must, however, express my strong opposition to one particular 
provision, section 507. This section clearly violates the first 
amendment's prohibition against laws restricting freedom of speech.
  As some of our colleagues know, section 507 of this conference report 
incorporates by reference part of the Federal criminal law--18 U.S.C. 
1462--and, by doing so, would make it a crime punishable by up to 10 
years in prison to transmit or receive information through an 
interactive computer about abortion procedures.
  While this bill contains other constitutionally questionable 
restrictions on the content of information transmitted or received 
through a computer, a flat prohibition on transmission or receipt of 
abortion information, like that contained in section 507 is, as the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has conceded, clearly 
unconstitutional.
  While the authors of this bill have stated on the floor of the House 
of Representatives today that it was not their intention to restrict 
free speech on the matter of abortion and have stated their 
understanding of the unconstitutional nature of section 507, it is 
difficult to understand how and why this provision was ever included in 
this bill. The inclusion of this offensive provision is a testament to 
the terribly flawed process used to bring this conference report to the 
floor today.
  The Members of the House have been given assurances that including 
this provision restricting free speech on the subject of abortion was a 
mistake we should act quickly and in a bipartisan fashion to correct 
this insult to the first amendment rights of all Americans.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 652, the 
Telecommunications Act of 1995, which represents the most comprehensive 
overall of our Nation's telecommunications law since 1934. This 
historic legislation seeks to provide consumers with more choices and 
lower rates by promoting competition among telecommunications 
providers.
  I opposed the House-passed version of this legislation because I did 
not believe it would have adequately protected American consumers from 
unwarranted cable and telephone rate increases. I was also very 
concerned that it would have allowed only a few large companies to 
control what Americans watch on television, listen to on the radio, or 
read in the newspapers.
  While I continue to have reservations about several provisions of 
this legislation, I would like to commend the members of the conference 
committee for making significant improvements in many areas of the 
bill. The conference report does much more than the original House bill 
to benefit consumers. It deregulates the cable industry more gradually, 
raises broadcast ownership limits in a way that will promote 
competition and preserve diversity, and seeks to improve phone service 
and lower phone rates by leveling the playing field for telephone 
service providers.
  I remain very concerned, however, about a provision in this bill that 
will criminalize the communication of information about abortion over 
the Internet. Under section 507 of this bill, individuals who provide 
family planning information over computer networks could be subject to 
a 5-year prison term. Even mentioning the word ``abortion'' could be 
considered a criminal act in some circumstances. Mr. Speaker, this is 
clearly unacceptable. That is why I voted against the rule under which 
this legislation is now being considered.
  This bill should be about giving consumers a choice among competing 
telecommunications providers, not about threatening a woman's right to 
reproductive choice. This Information Age gag rule, which is likely to 
be found unconstitutional, has no place in this important legislation 
and should be eliminated. I am, therefore, extremely pleased that 
Representative Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary 
Committee, and Representative Nita Lowey, chair of the Pro-Choice Task 
Force of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, have engaged in a 
colloquy making it absolutely clear that this language was not intended 
by the drafters of the bill and will be removed from the act as soon as 
possible. While I am confident that this ban is unconstitutional, I am 
nevertheless eager to ensure 

[[Page H1173]]
that Congress acts quickly to permanently remove this language from the 
bill.
  I am also concerned that S. 652 could infringe upon Americans' 
constitutional right to free speech by allowing the Government 
to police the Internet for indecent material. Under this legislation, 
individuals who disseminate material that the Federal Government 
believes may violate contemporary community standards of decency could 
face prison terms. Thus, a librarian could be held liable for putting 
classic books such as ``Catcher in the Rye'' and ``Ulysses'' on line 
since they include profanity. While we all agree that children must not 
have access to indecent or pornographic materials, I do not believe 
that Government regulation of the information superhighway is the best 
way to solve the problem.

  That is why I voted for an amendment to the House-passed bill that 
would have allowed computer users and computer network providers to 
police the Internet, rather than the Federal Government. This amendment 
would have prohibited the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] from 
regulating the Internet and other interactive computer services, but 
would have encouraged computer network providers to voluntarily screen 
and prevent the distribution of obscene and other objectionable 
materials on computer networks. I sincerely hope that Congress will 
consider legislation later this year to institute this more reasonable 
approach to protecting children from indecent material.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come to pass a comprehensive 
telecommunications reform bill. Despite several shortcomings, S. 652 is 
a balanced bill that will lead to technological advances and provide 
Americans with a telecommunications network for the 21st century. More 
importantly, the final bill makes dramatic advances over the earlier 
version in protecting consumers. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
important legislation.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 652, the 
Telecommunications Act.
  I believe that this is a good bill for my State of Utah, and for the 
Nation. For years, we have struggled in Congress to rewrite our 
communications laws to reflect the dynamic changes that have taken 
place in long distance and local telephone service, cable TV, 
broadcasting, and the Internet. Passage today and likely enactment into 
law in the near future represents a tremendous bipartisan effort.
  First, I would like express my support for the strong provisions in 
this bill which protect rural America. Over the last few months, I have 
been pleased to work with rural Republicans and Democrats to insist on 
strong universal service and toll-rate-averaging provisions. Late last 
year, we sent a letter to conferees expressing our concerns and 
identifying provisions critical to rural America. Inclusion of such 
provisions in the final conference report will save the average rural 
telephone user hundreds of dollars a year.
  For example, the House-passed bill contained much weaker universal 
service provisions than the Senate bill. Universal service is the 
mechanism which ensures affordable monthly phone rates for rural 
residents. The Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small 
Telephone Companies [OPASTCO] recently conducted a detailed study on 
the effect of rates in a deregulated environment. This study found that 
the elimination of universal service in a deregulated environment could 
increase annual phone rates for rural Utahns by $198 a year. 
Fortunately, the stronger Senate provision, fully protecting universal 
service, prevailed.
  A similar concern has been raised with respect to toll-rate 
averaging--both for intrastate and interstate long-distance phone 
calls. According to the same OPASTCO study, the elimination of toll 
rate averaging could increase annual long-distance phone bills for 
rural Utahns by $465 a year. Early House versions of the 
telecommunications bill did not fully protect intrastate and interstate 
toll-rate averaging. Fortunately, the bill we are now passing 
reinstates these important provisions.
  Finally, the bill contains a number of other important rural 
protections and provisions. The one that I am proudest of is the 
provision which promotes affordable access for schools, libraries, and 
rural hospitals and health care facilities to the information 
superhighway. When this bill first came to the House floor, I was very 
disappointed to see that it contained no such provision. Therefore, I 
joined with my colleagues, Representatives Morella, Lofgren, and Ney in 
offering an amendment to include an affordable Internet access 
requirement comparable to the one contained in the Senate. Through our 
efforts, we were able to obtain the support of the distinguished 
chairman of the House Commerce Committee to push for its inclusion in 
the conference report. With such inclusion, we will be able to make it 
easier for rural schools and libraries to gain affordable access to the 
information superhighway to promote distance learning. We will be able 
to make it easier for rural hospitals to implement telemedicine, an 
exciting new approach to health care in less populated areas.
  So, I believe this is a very good bill for rural Utah and rural 
America. By unleashing the forces of competition, coupled with prudent 
protections for those areas and services where full, effective 
competition may not be possible, we should improve the quality, cost, 
and availability of telecommunications in rural areas.
  Second, I would like to express my strong support for deregulation of 
the cable TV industry. Three years ago, Congress enacted a misguided 
bill to regulate cable television prices. The effect of that bill was 
to create a regulatory nightmare at the FCC, and a curb on the dynamic 
free market growth of programming. I was in a fairly small minority who 
opposed that earlier curb on free market cable TV activities. I am 
pleased to see a majority of both the House and Senate are now 
admitting that that was a mistake.

  Third, with respect to deregulation of local and long-distance phone 
service, I believe that the final provisions represent a workable and 
sensible approach. It is certainly our expectation that competition 
should improve local phone service for consumers.
  However, many of us are aware that the transition period from a 
regulated to a deregulated environment may not be easy. I am pleased to 
see a stronger review role for the Department of Justice in the 
conference report, to assure that this transition period does not 
result in the domination by one provider, to the detriment of 
competition. As this process unfolds, we in Congress should monitor 
these national market developments closely to make sure that the 
promise of true local phone service competition is in fact met.
  Finally, I am pleased to see the inclusion in the bill of a V-chip 
requirement in all new 13-inch and larger television sets. This was not 
included in the original House bill, but we prevailed in adding this 
provision by amendment. Increasingly, parents are becoming concerned 
about the content of television programming. The use of the V-chip 
gives parents increased control over what their children watch. It is a 
fair, economical approach to dealing with this problem.
  Is this a perfect bill? I don't think there is a Member in this body 
that is satisfied with each and every provision in it. Can we 
absolutely predict that the telecommunications changes we are 
unleashing today will be a complete and total success? Again, no one 
can really know with certainty. However, this legislation is a 
balanced, well-thought-out proposal that is long overdue. To wait any 
longer is to see our laws fall increasingly behind the rapidly moving 
forces of change that we see in all areas of telecommunications. This 
is a very good bill that should become law now.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
Communications Act of 1995 and, more specifically, provisions in the 
conference report which preserve the ability of local authorities to 
protect their rights-of-way and public property.
  As you may recall, 1 year ago, I stood before this body to ask for 
your support in passing H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995, in 
order to bring a new level of accountability to the Federal Government. 
This legislation, the principal provisions of which took effect on 
January 1, 1996, forces Congress to end the increasing practice of 
imposing crippling mandates on States and local governments without 
regard for their costs. Now the Federal Government must work 
cooperatively with State and local governments to avoid new mandates.
  Today, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 passed its first real 
test, the Communications Act of 1995. Thanks to local governments, the 
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Congressional Budget Office, all of 
whom assisted in identifying legitimate concerns about potential 
unfunded mandates in this bill, we were prepared to raise points of 
order on the floor to stop the mandates.
  The Commerce Committee has worked with us, representatives of the 
State and local governments and other interested parties to avoid 
potential unfunded mandates and protect local control over public 
property and rights-of-way. We secured language that ensured local 
governments retained their control over rights-of-way. The language 
included in the Communications Act now adequately addresses the key 
concerns that have been raised by State and local governments about 
potential unfunded mandates. As proponents of unfunded mandates reform 
and protecting local control over rights-of-way, we were pleased to see 
this result.
  I would like to express my gratitude to my mandates counterpart and 
original cosponsor on the other side of the aisle, Representative 
Condit, for his assistance as well as Representative Joe Barton, and 
Representative Bart Stupak, true champions of State and local rights.
  Mr. Speaker, unfunded mandates reform is a reality and I look forward 
to working with all 

[[Page H1174]]
my colleagues committed to reflecting the concerns of State and local 
governments in Federal legislation.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, while I support many of the provisions in 
this conference report, I have serious concerns about computer 
censorship provisions included in the telecommunications agreement. In 
response to a strong lobby by the Christian Coalition, conferees voted 
17-16 to include a provision which would make it a felony to put 
indecent material on a computer where a person under 18 can get It. 
Because indecent has not been defined by the Congress or the courts, 
the potential for abuse is great.
  I do not believe the Federal Government should be involved in using a 
very loosely defined to test to judge communications between 
individuals. It is wrong to have the Christian Coalition judge what is 
appropriate speech on the Internet or anywhere else.
  I am particularly concerned about the potential impact of this 
provision on HIV-prevention programs. The indecent provision has the 
potential to ban explicit HIV-prevention materials from the Internet.
  The Internet has great potential as a tool in HIV prevention. It has 
the potential to provide accurate information that could be used by 
young people to protect themselves from HIV and other sexually 
transmitted diseases. According to the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention [CDC], other than abstinence, the most effective way to 
prevent HIV transmission is the consistent and proper use of condoms.
  Organizations currently provide detailed information on the proper 
use of condoms. The question remains whether individuals working for 
these AIDS organizations in California could be arrested and extradited 
to more conservative parts of the country because this information was 
obtained by an individual under 18 years of age.
  Banning HIV-prevention information does not protect young people. In 
fact, it can have the opposite effect. This computer censorship 
provision is wrong and should not be part of this legislation.
  I am pleased that this legislation will empower parents by requiring 
the development of the V-chip. This chip will allow parents to block 
television programming they do not want their children to see. The V-
chip will provide parents with a tool to help in the positive up-
bringing of their children.
  Mr. Speaker, there are provisions of the bill that have a significant 
affect on cities, including the city of San Francisco. I am pleased 
that section 253(c) recognizes the historic authority of State and 
local governments to regulate and require compensation for the use of 
public rights of way. It further recognizes that States and local 
governments may apply different management and compensation 
requirements to different telecommunications providers' to the extent 
that they make different use of the public rights of way. Section 
253(c) also makes clear that section 253(a) is inapplicable to right of 
way management and compensation requirements so long as those entitles 
that make similar demands on the public rights of way are treated in a 
competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. As for the issue of 
FCC preemption, I am pleased that the committee agreed to support the 
Senate language which authorizes the Commission to preempt the 
enforcement only of State or local requirements that violate subsection 
(a) or (b), not (c). The courts, not the Commission, will address 
disputes under section 253(c).
  The overwhelming vote in the House on Representative Barton and 
Representative Stupak's amendment, as well as the unanimous acceptance 
of Senator Gorton's amendment in the Senate, indicate that the Congress 
wishes to protect the legitimate authority of local governments to 
manage and receive compensation for use of the rights of way.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the telecommunications reform legislation.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, this is a truly historic day for 
the American people. We are engaged in a discussion of a bill that 
fundamentally controls a business that is the fastest growing segment 
in our economy--telecommunications.
  I welcome the opportunity to debate the merits of this ground-
breaking legislation. Specifically, I would like to point out my 
concerns over the definition of facility-based competition. Real 
competition. To be effective, any market entry test must contain 
standards that clearly define the presence of local competition. Real 
competition will occur only when there are facilities-based companies 
serving many customers in major markets throughout the State of 
Oklahoma.
  As rules that define facilities-based competition are developed and 
implemented, I expect those charged with that responsibility to make 
certain: There are periodic studies of the degree of actual competition 
in local exchange markets to determine whether the incumbent exchanges' 
market power has been constrained enough to relax some of the 
regulations intended to safeguard against the abuse of market power; 
all local exchange service providers provide service to all customers 
who request service, provide line-side interconnection and unbundling 
of the local loop into its functional sub-elements--feeder and 
distribution, obey the equal rules that are in place, cap prices for 
exchange access services and reciprocal termination at the rates 
charged by the incumbent exchanges, and allow full resale of all 
service offerings.
  I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to add my concerns to this 
debate. I will not oppose this report and hope its passage results in 
quantum improvements to telecommunications access and a better standard 
of living for the American people.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This report 
represents one of the most monumental, deregulatory, and sweeping 
legislation ever considered in the history of Congress. I commend my 
colleagues, Senators Pressler and Hollings, and Congressmen Bliley, 
Hyde, Fields, and Dingell for their relentless efforts to produce such 
unprecedented policy in a balanced and thoughtful manner. I consider it 
a great privilege to have been a member of this conference committee 
which took upon the task of examining every aspect of the converging 
telecommunications industry.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment. Today, with passage of this 
legislation, this Congress is breaking the shackles of repressive 
government regulations. It is forging a new era where consumer choice, 
technological development, innovation, and competition control the 
marketplace, while we keep a watchful eye upon monopoly power.
  This legislation marks only the second time the Government has 
addressed telecommunications policy. The Communications Act of 1934, 
representing the first time, was enacted when our Nation was highly 
dependent upon telegraph, and believed radio and telephone technology 
to be luxuries. Frankly, the Communications Act has governed 
telecommunications policy for far too long. Readily available and 
highly used technologies of today, such as digital overt analog 
transmission, cellular and wireless technology, as well as digital 
compression and interactive data transmission were not even within the 
realm of imagination of society in 1934.
  I am here today to acknowledge that over the past several months I 
have had the opportunity to observe and examine advanced technologies 
which are not yet available to consumers. That is why I will be the 
first to admit that it would be impossible for us to predict what 
technologies and their applications will be available next year. This 
legislation was crafted fully aware of the fact and the stranglehold 
the Government was placing upon its development. I firmly believe that 
this legislation will unleash such competitive forces and innovation 
that our Nation will see more technological development and deployment 
in the next 5 years than we have already seen in this century. With 
that technological development will come hundreds of thousands of new 
jobs and tens of billions of private industry dollars being invested in 
infrastructure and technology in an explosive, yet steady, manner.
  This landmark legislation is predicated upon two things: competition 
and the consumer. Our society is founded on the belief that competition 
produces new technologies, new applications for those technologies, and 
new services, all at a lower cost to the consumer. S. 652 puts the 
consumer in control. Cable companies, local telephone companies, long-
distance companies, broadcast stations, wireless providers, utility 
companies, among many others, will all be competing for the consumer's 
business, offering new technologies, better services, and more choices 
at a lower cost.
  Much of my support for this legislation is based on not only the 
consumer benefits gained through lower costs and better services, but 
through the access and availability to services and technologies in 
rural areas such as the Fifth Congressional District of Indiana. The 
impact of this nationwide network and universal access in rural areas 
will be revolutionary. We're not talking about just making sure small 
communities have cable services and can order a pizza from their 
television sets. This legislation will bring the world's leading heart 
surgeon into the surgery room at Jasper County Hospital and other rural 
hospitals. It will allow hog farmers in rural Carroll County to access 
the latest veterinary research to diagnose their herd's disease. 
Classrooms in Cass County can have access to the libraries of Oxford 
University. We will be bringing precision farming technology to Benton 
County, IN, through the use of global positioning satellites.
  All of these extraordinary services and benefits are being obtained 
by ending the strangle hold of Government on the telecommunications 
industry. I truly believe that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
represents one of the greatest proconsumer, job creation, and 
infrastructure investment bill ever considered 

[[Page H1175]]
by Congress. I fully support this measure and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the concerns 
raised by some over the language in the bill protecting minors from 
indecent communications over the Internet.
  At a meeting of House conferees I offered the compromise language 
replacing a harmful-to-minors standard with indecency and it was 
adopted as the House proffer on cyberporn.
  I am appalled by the unjustified hue and cry that this indecency 
provision will chill free speech and is therefore unconstitutional. 
This indecency standard has survived First Amendment scrutiny by the 
U.S. Supreme Court as applied in a wide variety of circumstances. In 
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) the Supreme Court held that the 
broadcast of indecent material could be banned during hours when 
children were likely to be viewers or listeners. In stating why 
broadcast indecency could be restricted Justice Steven who delivered 
the opinion pointed to the facts that broadcasts extend into the 
privacy of the home and is uniquely accessible to children. The 
Internet is very similar to the broadcast medium in those respects--it 
extends into the privacy of the home and it is uniquely accessible to 
children.
  Some have even claimed that an indecency standard will keep great 
literary works such as ``Catcher in the Rye'' off the Internet. I 
strongly disagree and I believe that the definition of indecency, which 
is very narrow, makes this clear. The exact definition of indecency is 
``any material that in context depicts or describes, in terms patently 
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or 
excretory activities or organs.''
  The context of the material cannot be disregarded when making a 
determination of indecency. Therefore, if someone transmits the entire 
novel ``Catcher in the Rye'' they would not be violating an indecency 
standard, but if they transmit only certain passages out of context 
they might. Indecency is not an inherent attribute of words or 
pictures, but rather a matter of context and conduct. In addition, it 
must be evaluated by prevailing community standards, not the views of 
just a few individuals.
  We need to maintain a high standard when it comes to protecting 
children from exposure to pornography. The indecency provision in this 
legislation is right on target. It will keep smut away from children 
and protect on-line services or information providers who make a good-
faith effort to keep indecent material away from children.
  In addition, a very important factor cannot be overlooked--the battle 
over cyberporn threatened to completely throw the progression of 
telecommunications legislation off track. By bringing the House proffer 
on cyberporn closer to that contained in the Senate bill, my compromise 
prevented conferees from getting bogged down in this debate and allowed 
today's debate to come to pass.


Regarding Section 271(d)(2)(A) (Consultation with the Attorney General)

  The conference agreement provides that the FCC must notify the 
Attorney General promptly when an application is filed by a Bell 
operating company for in-region interLATA relief. Before making its 
determination on the merits of the application, the FCC must consult 
with the Attorney General. In this regard, the Attorney General may 
submit an evaluation to the FCC using any antitrust standard that the 
Attorney General believes the FCC should consider in assessing the 
application. This requirement recognizes the special expertise of the 
Attorney General in antitrust and competitive matters.
  However, this paragraph expressly provides that the Attorney 
General's evaluation does not have a preclusive effect on the FCC. In 
other words, the FCC is not required to adopt or even agree with that 
evaluation or with the conclusions of the Attorney General. While the 
FCC must give the Attorney General's evaluation substantial weight, it 
is not required to follow the Attorney General's views. Moreover, the 
FCC is free to give substantial weight--indeed greater weight if 
justified by the proffer--to the evidence offered by the applicant, 
Bell operating company. This is also true both of the conclusions and 
the recommendations concerning public interest, convenience and 
necessity or concerning competitive issues.
  This provision is also not intended to give the views of the Attorney 
General any special weight or entitle them to any special deference 
upon judicial review of an FCC decision under this subsection. The 
critical determination under this subsection is the FCC's determination 
whether the Bell operating company has met the requirements of the Act. 
The courts will accord that FCC determination ``full Chevron 
deference'' as provided for in Chevron v. National Resources Defense 
Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the conferees for 
their work on this important legislation which will shepherd in a new 
era of technological advancement and opportunity for all Americans. My 
focus on this telecommunications legislation has been on ensuring that 
Guam has the same access to telecommunications technology and advances 
in the information superhighway as other U.S. citizens.
  In this regard, the universal service provision is an important 
statement of principle. It ensures that consumers in all regions of the 
Nation, including insular areas, should have access to 
telecommunications and information services and at rates that are 
reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in Urban 
area.
  When the universal service provision was first drafted, it neglected 
to mention whether or not it applied to insular areas. After I brought 
this oversight to the attention of Chairman Pressler on the Senate 
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, he acknowledged that 
the addition of ``insular'' in the universal service section was an 
important clarification and agreed to clarify this definition.
  The addition of the universal service provision is an important 
statement of principle at a time when Guam and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI] are pursuing inclusion in the North 
American Numbering Plan [NANP]. NANP inclusion would help to overcome 
both domestic and international misconceptions about the political 
status of Guam and the CNMI, ensure that the U.S. citizens on these 
islands have the same opportunities as all other Americans and improve 
access to the information superhighway. The inclusion of ``insular'' in 
the universal service section reinforces the need to include Guam and 
the CNMI in the NANP.
  Again, I want to thank the conferees for their attention to this 
important clarification and for their inclusion of the universal 
service provision in the final legislation.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment both Chairman Bliley and 
Chairman Fields for the leadership they have shown, as well as the 
diligence and perseverance exhibited in shepherding this long overdue 
telecommunications bill through the legislative process. This 
conference report represents the first major overhaul of the 
communications industry in the last 60 years. This historic legislation 
reduces the Federal regulatory burden on the communications industry, 
and as a consequence of more competition and less regulation, American 
consumers should benefit from a greater choice of telecommunications 
services with lower prices and higher quality than is presently 
available.
  Currently, consumers of many telecommunication services in America do 
not benefit from the innovation of new services and constant pressure 
for lower prices that characterize competitive markets. For example, 
providers of local telephone services are currently protected from 
direct competition by a complex web of Federal, State, and local laws. 
This legislation, if it remains true to its intent, will cut through 
that inertia and allow competitors to offer local telephone services. 
We have already seen what real competition has done to long distance 
rates--I can only hope the same is true for local rates.
  This historic act has the potential to be the largest job creation 
bill in a decade. It is estimated that it will lead to $30 to $50 
billion in consumer and business benefits and will hasten America's 
entry into the information age. The Telecommunications Act will unleash 
American ingenuity and free American entrepreneurs to bring innovative, 
exciting new products and services to market. It's about time that 
technological advances will be tested in the marketplace, and not in 
Washington or the Federal courts.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement, and I request permission to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, unless I miss my guess, the bill before us will probably 
be the most historically important piece of legislation this Congress 
will consider. The telecommunications industry is growing rapidly in 
size and significance, primarily because telecommunication is about 
information and information is the future.
  The law currently governing telecommunications, the Communications 
Act of 1934, was written for the era of radio, and while it has been 
amended several times since, it still maintains an outdated regulatory 
structure designed for an era where sources of information were scarce. 
But technology has blurred the lines among telephone, television, 
computer, and newspaper, to the point where all three can potentially 
be the same thing.
  And with the advent of the information age, we need to recognize the 
need for competition among information media so that the free 
marketplace of ideas can be communicated through a free marketplace of 
information outlets. This bill seeks to exploit the market's ability to 
maximize quality, maximize consumer choice, and minimize prices.
  Mr. Speaker, I supported the Contract With America. But years after 
the the contract is a footnote in history, the significance of this law 
will still be obvious, for this is Congress' most important step ever 
toward embracing the information era. And through this legislation, we 

[[Page H1176]]
embrace it with the freedom and efficiency that only the free market 
can provide. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about S. 652 to ensure 
that its provisions are implemented in a manner that ensures fair 
competition in the telecommunications marketplace.
  A major objective of S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is 
the creation and maintenance of competition in local markets. Since 
States will play a key role in implementing this Federal legislation, 
it is vital that they act consistently with this Federal aim.
  More specifically, section 253 of S. 652 provides that States and 
local governments shall not impose any requirement that prohibits or 
has the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide 
telecommunications services, and permits the FCC to preempt any actions 
that violate or are inconsistent with this policy. Because new entry is 
a fundamental of competition, it is most important that the FCC act 
expeditiously on any complaint that alleges a violation of this 
provision. Further, the Commission must ensure that any State or local 
requirement fully conforms to the act's standard.
  I want to assure all my colleagues that I will closely follow the 
FCC's implementation of this provision to ensure it meets the spirit of 
this new law.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of the conference report on S. 652, although I do not do so 
without reservation.
  As this legislation was being worked out, many of the concerns I had 
were dealt with in a positive manner. Agreements have been reached 
which give my home of Dallas needed language regarding rights-of-way, a 
matter of concern to me throughout the negotiation process regarding 
telecommunications reform.
  Additionally, I have had some concern about the possibility of the 
regional Bell operating companies using this legislation as a basis to 
engage in massive downsizing. Although I realize that some change in 
the operations of these companies is inevitable, I have been most 
interested in protecting valuable jobs in my district. Because of 
assurances that I have received concerning the position of Southwestern 
Bell with respect to these jobs, I am pleased to add my support, and my 
vote, to pass this historic legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I must rise to express my 
views on this important piece of legislation, the Telecommunications 
Act of 1995. This is a comprehensive bill that will allow us to enter 
into the technological revolution of the 21st century.
  I am pleased with many provisions of the bill. For example, I believe 
that it is important that the Justice Department has a strong role in 
advising the Federal Communications Commission on whether competition 
exists in local markets. I would like to have seen a stronger role; 
however, the FCC must give the Justice Department's views substantial 
weight, which is a recognition of the Department's strong history and 
expertise in antitrust matters. The original versions of the bill would 
have given little or no role for the Justice Department.
  The bill also allows the telephone companies to enter the long-
distance market as soon as there is actual competition in the local 
market. The Bell companies are also required to open up their networks 
to local competitors. The bill raises the limit on radio or television 
stations that an individual or ownership group may own. The limit, 
however, is reasonable and not as large as the original House version.
  Furthermore, the bill creates a telecommunications development fund 
that is designed to facilitate participation by small businesses in the 
industry. I hope that the officials that manage the telecommunications 
fund will utilize this opportunity to develop strong outreach measures 
toward minority- and women-owned businesses that have been 
underrepresented in the telecommunications industry.
  Another positive aspect to the bill is the universal service 
provisions that make sure that this telecommunications revolution 
leaves no one behind. There are strong provisions relating to access to 
residents in rural areas, access by schools and libraries, and access 
to individuals with disabilities.
  The provisions relating to the requirement that the larger television 
sets contain v-chip technology is extremely important as we transmit 
moral and cultural values to America's children. This V-chip technology 
will allow parents to block out certain programs that they find 
objectionable. Moreover, the FCC will be required to formulate some 
rating guidelines that can assist parents with respect to television 
programs.
  As with any bill, I do not agree with all of the provisions. I am 
concerned about the deregulation of cable rates by March 1999. Many of 
us can cite incidents in which cable companies have been slow in 
providing quality service at a reasonable price. I hope that the FCC 
will encourage the cable companies to continue to develop ways to 
improve the quality of cable service and to work with local 
municipalities to insure fair treatment for cities and counties.
  I am also concerned about some of the provisions relating to 
obscenity. Some of these provisions may need to be clarified in a 
technical corrections bill. For example, we would not want to prevent a 
physician from discussing an abortion procedure on the Internet. I 
believe additionally, that the question of auctioning the spectrum 
needs further review.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that for the most part, this bill is a good 
bill. It will be good for the telecommunications industry, good for 
consumers, and good for the country. It has been a major struggle to 
get this bill to the floor. Many Members have been working on some form 
of this bill for the last 3 years.
  We may go forward today, however it should not be without a 
commitment to revisit this legislation to make this bill a better bill.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on the telecommunications reform bill.
  I originally opposed the measure when it came before the House last 
August because I felt the manager's amendment weakened the standards to 
promote effective competition and provide fair, reasonable rates for 
consumers. I am pleased that the conference report includes a 
reasonable checklist of requirements and requires that a FCC public 
interest test be met before applying for long distance entry.
  I commend the committee and its leadership as well for including 
language urging the FCC to give substantial weight to the views of the 
U.S. Justice Department in determining Bell entry into long distance. I 
feel that judgment from outside the regulating agency is critical to 
making a fair decision that is in the best interest of the individual 
market served.
  One of the main reasons I voted against the bill last summer was the 
way in which it would have weakened consumer power in keeping cable 
rates in check. It has taken several years to effectively implement the 
Cable Act of 1992, legislation which has worked in many ways to keep 
cable rates from skyrocketing. I did not want to see Congress's 
proconsumer efforts weakened. I am pleased that the conference report, 
while not perfect in this area, has made better strides than the 
original House bill toward keeping consumer protections in regard to 
cable prices and rates.
  I am pleased that the conference committee retained the House 
position on installation of the V-chip on all 13-inch and larger 
television sets. The average American child watches an estimated 27 
hours of television per week, and one study estimates that before 
finishing elementary school a child will watch over 8,000 murders and 
10,000 acts of violence on television. The inclusion of a V-chip will 
give parents an additional safeguard to protect children from 
objectionable or qusestionable programming.
  This is the most comprehensive communications bill since the 1930's. 
As we move toward the 21st century, the ability to communicate in a 
rapid, cost-effective manner will continue to be important to all 
Americans. I am pleased that working together we have achieved a 
framework, while not perfect, that will serve to guide our 
communication policy both now and in the future.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend 
Chairman Fields  along with the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and the Telecommunications and Finance 
staff for the hard work and long hours you've all spent crafting this 
legislation and moving it expeditiously to the floor today. Your 
earnest efforts have resulted in an agreement that, while certainly not 
flawless, will begin to pave the roads of the information superhighway 
with increased competition and assist in promoting greater economic 
opportunities for more Americans as we head into the 21st century.
  Back in August 1995, I voted against H.R. 1555 because of numerous 
concerns I had with the bill particularly in the areas of cable rate 
deregulation and mass media ownership concentration. I am now convinced 
that, due to significant bipartisan cooperation on these matters, many 
of my concerns have been addressed sufficiently enough that I will 
support the conference report we have before us.
  With respect to cable, this conference report modifies original 
language in H.R. 1555 that would have gutted the 1992 Cale Act by 
lifting cable rate regulation on the most popular cable programming 15 
months after enactment of the bill for the largest operators, 
regardless of the competitive nature of their markets. After prolonged 
discussions, conferees agreed to redraft this section of the bill to 
ensure that true competition exists prior to deregulation of today's 
heavily monopolistic cable markets. By 1999 rate requirements will be 
lifted for all cable systems across the country.
  This is an important compromise Mr. Speaker. According to the General 
Accounting Office, blanket deregulation of the cable industry prior to 
effective competition in 1984 resulted in a monumental rise in cable 
rates at three 

[[Page H1177]]
times the rate of inflation. Given the fact that, today, effective 
competition exists in less than one-half of 1 percent of all cable 
systems nationwide and affordable cable TV alternatives for 99.5 
percent of consumers from phone companies or satellite providers is not 
yet fully feasible, swiftly opening up these markets as provided in the 
original bill would only have spurred price gouging against consumers.
  Also, the conference report's provisions on mass media ownership are 
much more reasonable than the extreme language in last August's bill. 
That language would have virtually guaranteed that power would have 
been concentrated among a select few communications megacorporations, 
sacrificing the key tenets of communications policy--community control 
and variety of viewpoints. That legislation repealed all ownership 
limits on radio stations, allowed one network to control programming 
reaching 50 percent of all households nationwide, gave one major 
communications entity the ability to own newspapers, cable systems, and 
television stations in a single town. This type of excessive media 
control is not a healthy prescription for competition.
  Thankfully, these provisions were altered by lowering to 35 the 
percentage of all national television viewers that one network's 
programming could reach. In addition, this conference report keeps 
intact current restrictions that prevent one media giant from owning 
two television stations in one locality or owning newspapers in 
combination with ration stations, cable holdings, or TV interests in 
the same market.
  However, I am most pleased about certain provisions designed to 
assist our Nation's smallest telecommunications providers which are 
included in this conference report.
  As I have said on numerous occasions, while we should all look 
forward to the opportunities presented by new, emerging technologies, 
we cannot disregard the lessons of the past and the hurdles we still 
face in making certain that everyone in America benefits equally from 
our country's maiden voyage into cyberspace. I refer to the well-
documented fact that minority and women-owned small businesses continue 
to be extremely under represented in the telecommunciations field.
  In the cellular industry, which generates in excess of $10 billion a 
year, there are a mere 11 minority firms offering services in this 
market. Overall, barely 1 percent of all telecommunciations companies 
are minority-owned. Of women-owned firms in the United States, only 1.9 
percent fall within the communications category.
  Several of the provisions included in this bill will begin the 
process of eradicating these inequities.
  I am very pleased to see that Representative Rush's amendment to help 
to advance diversity of ownership in the telecommunications 
marketplace, which is similar to a provision I included in last year's 
telecommunications legislation, was retained in conference. It requires 
the Federal Communications Commission to identify and work to eliminate 
barriers to market entry that continue to constrain all small 
businesses, including minority and women-owned firms, in their attempts 
to take part in all telecommunications industries. Underlying this 
amendment is the obvious fact that diversity of ownership remains a key 
to the competitiveness of the U.S. telecommunications marketplace.
  In addition, I fully support the telecommunications development fund 
language included in the conference report. This language ensures that 
escrow deposits the FCC receives through auctions be placed in an 
interest-bearing account and the interest from such deposits be used to 
increase access to capital for small telecommunications firms. This 
fund seeks to increase competition in the telecommunications industry 
by making loans, investments, or other similar extensions of credit to 
eligible entrepreneurs.
  Finally, antiredlining provisions that prohibit all 
telecommunications providers from discriminating against individuals 
and communities on the basis of race, gender, creed, and so forth 
address a genuine concern of mine that the information superhighway 
must not be allowed to bypass those groups most in need of its 
benefits.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this conference report.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 1555, the House-passed 
Telecommunications reform bill, in August. I believe the conference 
report before us today is a much improved piece of legislation that 
deserves our support.
  This bill contains the important V-chip technology that will allow 
parents to control what programs are viewed by their children. This 
parental control device will be of great benefit as consumer access to 
a seemingless endless number of new television channels enter the 
market place.
  I believe this conference report has addressed in a fair manner the 
issue of cable deregulation. I represent a rural district and was 
greatly concerned about the negative impacts H.R. 1555 would have had 
on cable consumers I represent. I understand the importance of free and 
open markets, but in rural America competition if often slow in coming. 
The conference report before us today ensures consumer protection until 
real and meaning cable competition exists.
  The telecommunications reform conference report before us today is 
not a perfect bill, but it is a very good bill. This legislation allows 
for true competition among local and long distance phone companies, 
protects cable consumers, and provides needed measures that make it 
illegal to intentionally communicate obscene materials over a computer 
network.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about America being ready to embark on the 
information superhighway. This bill allow us to do that. Last week 
during the President's State of the Union address he referenced the 
importance of this legislation. I am proud that members on both sides 
of the aisle have worked together to produce a bill that is truly 
bipartisan. I commend the work of Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, and the 
other members of the conference committee for working together to 
produce this historic legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me 
in supporting this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker: I would like to express my support for S. 
652, the Telecommunications Act conference report, as I believe it is 
an important step forward in the development of our telecommunications 
policy. The issues we are discussing today--involving local and long 
distance phones service, cable TV, cellular phones, and more--will 
truly touch the lives of all Americans. As a member of the Commerce 
Committee which drafted and approved this bill last year, I'm pleased 
that we are finally on the verge of seeing this legislation enacted.
  The national telecommunications network will play a very central role 
as we prepare to enter the 21st century. Throughout Michigan and the 
entire Nation, we must prepare ourselves to take advantage of the 
latest technology and do our best to see that there are no potholes on 
the information superhighway.
  There are many important issues in the bill before us today. Let me 
just take a moment to take note of an issue of particular concern to 
the people of southwest Michigan--local marketing agreements, also 
known as LMA's.
  A very successful LMA is in existence between two stations in western 
Michigan, WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids and WOTV in Battle Creek. In 1991, 
WOTV has suffered millions of dollars of losses and was forced to 
terminate their news operation and layoff many employees while they 
searched for a buyer.
  In late 1991, WOTV was able to enter into an LMA and bring the 
station back to financial stability. They now have a fully staffed news 
department dedicated to bringing local news to their viewers. 
Additionally, they are very active in community affairs such as events 
at Western Michigan University and the Kalamazoo Air Show.
  I am fully in support of efforts to allow for the continuation of 
LMA's in the future and I'm pleased that these provisions are part of 
S. 652.
  I believe that under this bill, we are preparing our nation for the 
wave of the future and leading the world into the 21st century.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents the first 
comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's communications policy since 
1934. Telecommunications technology has advanced beyond the wildest 
dreams of the visionaries of 1934, and yet the regulatory structure has 
remained unchanged. The present regulatory structure restricts 
competition in telecommunications markets and industries, thus stifling 
innovation, raising costs, and delaying the introduction of new 
products and services to consumers. Government regulators, rather than 
consumers, determine which companies can offer which services, and, in 
some cases, at what price. This bill will unshackle the 
telecommunications industry from the tenacious grasp of Federal, State, 
and local regulations, thus unleashing a broad array of new 
telecommunications services at lower costs.
  This profoundly important and far-reaching legislation recognizes the 
legacy of decades of regulation, and thus does not simply eliminate all 
regulations overnight for a brutal battle in the marketplace. While on 
first examination this may appear to make sense, the present regulatory 
structure has positioned some industries to do remarkably well under 
such a scenario, while others would find themselves severely 
handicapped. Thus, immediate and total deregulation could possibly 
inhibit competition rather than encourage it. Instead, the legislation 
has sought to ensure that different industries will be competing on a 
level playing field.
  This legislation is the product of years of analysis and negotiation, 
and is a fair and realistic bill which promotes and encourages 
competition in cable and telephony markets. In 

[[Page H1178]]
Delaware, for example, the local phone company will be able to offer 
consumers long distance services and other telecommunications products. 
The local phone company, however, will no longer operate as a monopoly, 
and will face competition from other companies. For the first time 
Delawareans will have a choice of telecommunications providers, and as 
companies compete for their business, they will reap significant 
benefits.
  I also support provisions that would ensure our Nation's schools and 
libraries have affordable access to educational telecommunications 
services. Schools can use telecommunications to ensure that all 
students, regardless of economic status, have access to the same rich 
learning resources. Libraries can ensure that every community has a 
publicly accessible means of electronic access to support classroom 
instruction, to communicate with the world-wide library community, to 
facilitate small business development, to access employment listings 
and Government databases, among other uses. It is in the Nation's best 
interest to ensure that all schools and libraries, even those in rural 
areas, are active participants in the Information Age.
  The impact of this legislation, of course, extends far beyond the 
borders of Delaware. Everyone, from an elementary school child 
exploring the world beyond his or her local community, to an elderly 
person benefiting from the expert advice of a physician 1000 miles away 
via Telemedicine, to a business seeking to become more efficient, to a 
parent wishing to telecommute to work, to a couch potato channel 
surfing through 500 channels, to an innovative entrepreneur seeking to 
provide new telecommunications services--everyone stands to benefit 
enormously from this legislation. Consequently, I give it my strong 
support and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the landmark 
legislation which we are considering today. S. 652 is the culmination 
of years of work to overhaul Federal telecommunications policy and 
position America as a world leader in the dawning information age.
  While this bill contains many important provisions, I want to address 
one area in particular--the issue of ``Telemedicine.'' As chairman of 
the Commerce Health Subcommittee, I have a special interest in this 
subject.
  Although it is subject to different interpretations, the term 
``Telemedicine'' generally refers to live, interactive audiovisual 
communication between physician and patient or between two physicians. 
Telemedicine can facilitate consultation between physicians and serve 
as a method of health care delivery in which physicians examine 
patients through the use of advanced telecommunications technology.
  One of the most important uses of Telemedicine is to allow rural 
communities and other medically under-served areas to obtain access to 
highly-trained medical specialists. It also provides access to medical 
care in circumstances when possibilities for travel are limited or 
unavailable.
  Despite widespread support for Telemedicine in concept, many critical 
policy questions remain unresolved. At the same time, the Federal 
Government is currently spending millions of dollars on Telemedicine 
demonstration projects with little or no congressional oversight. In 
particular, the Departments of Commerce and Health and Human Service 
have provided sizable grants for projects in a number of States.
  Therefore, I drafted a provision which is included in the conference 
report to require the Department of Commerce, in consultation with 
other appropriate agencies, to report annually to Congress on the 
findings of any studies and demonstrations on Telemedicine which are 
funded by the Federal Government.
  My provision is designed to provide greater information for Federal 
policymakers in the areas of patient safety, quality of services, and 
other legal, medical and economic issues related to Telemedicine. With 
the enactment of this provision, I am hopeful that we can shed light on 
the potential benefits of Telemedicine, as well as existing roadblocks 
to its use.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report to S. 652, this 
legislation will prove critical in defining our Nation's leadership 
role and economic viability in the 21st century.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, as the principal author of section 365 of 
the conference report, I rise to amplify the limited description of 
this provision in the statement of managers. In essence, this provision 
will permit a large ocean-going American-flag vessel operating in 
accordance with the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System [GMDSS] 
of the SOLAS Convention to sail without a radio telegraphy station 
operated by a radio officer or operator.
  In implementing this section, the Coast Guard can rely on the Federal 
Communications Commission to determine that a large-ocean going vessel 
has GMDSS equipment installed and operating in good working condition. 
We do not contemplate the Coast Guard conducting a rulemaking, public 
hearings, or other lengthy regulatory process. Rather, we contemplate a 
simple adaptation of current, well-established Commission certification 
procedures.
  Under section 359 of current law, the Federal Communications 
Commission is authorized to issue a certificate of compliance to the 
operator of a vessel demonstrating that the vessel is in full 
compliance with the radio provisions of the SOLAS Convention. By law, 
this certificate must be carried on board the vessel at all times the 
ship is in use. Thus, once a vessel operator has installed the 
necessary GMDSS equipment and demonstrated to the satisfaction of the 
Commission that the equipment is operating in good working condition, 
the operator will obtain a new or modified certificate of compliance 
from the Commission. By confirming that a vessel has on board such a 
valid certificate, the Cost Guard would fulfill its responsibilities 
under section 365.
  Let me emphasize, as well, that this provision does not alter the 
Commission's manning or maintenance requirements in any respect. Vessel 
operators, for example, will continue to be able to adopt two of the 
three permitted maintenance options: on-shore maintenance and equipment 
duplication.
  For too long, American-flag vessels have been saddled with the 
antiquated telegraphy station requirements of the 1934 act. Through our 
action today, we hope to help American-flag operators become more 
internationally competitive and to speed the introduction of the 
satellite-based GMDSS technology.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report 
before the House today. I am hopeful this legislation will ensure that 
our telecommunications markets remain the most competitive in the 
world. The Justice Department's role in the success of the legislation 
before us is critical. For over a decade, the Justice Department has 
fostered competition in these markets and the bill requires that the 
Federal Communications Commission, as part of its interest review, will 
give ``substantial weight'' to the Justice Department's evaluation of a 
Bell Operating Company's application for entry into long distance.
  The role included in this bill for the Department of Justice is truly 
essential to the ultimate success of this bill. In particular, the bill 
requires the FCC to rely on the Department's expertise to assess the 
overall competitive impact of the RBOCs entry into long distance. 
Clearly, there are other public interest factors which are entitled to 
their proper weight, and the FCC's reliance on the Justice Department 
is limited to antitrust related matters. In those instances when the 
cumulative effect of all other factors clearly and significantly 
outweighs the Justice Department's competitiveness concerns, the FCC 
should not be precluded from acting accordingly. However, I expect the 
FCC will not take actions that, in the Justice Department's view, would 
be harmful to competition.
  Second, I strongly opposed a provision included in the House passed 
bill that would have allowed the Federal Communications Commission 
[FCC] to issue rules that would preempt local zoning on where to site 
cellular communications towers. Cellular communications companies would 
have been allowed to place towers in any location, regardless of local 
concerns and the actions of local city councils and planning 
commissions, provided that they had obtained approval from an FCC 
bureaucrat in Washington. It is estimated 100,000 towers will be sited 
across the country by the year 2000. I have consistently supported the 
rights of local governments to decide zoning questions and I opposed 
this bill because it dramatically infringed on the rights of local 
government with respect to zoning. I am pleased a compromise has been 
reached on this issue and the FCC will be prevented from infringing on 
the rights of local and State land use decisions. The authority of 
State and local governments over zoning and land use matters is 
absolutely essential and must be preserved.
  I congratulate Chairmen Hyde, Bliley, and Fields for their tireless 
work on this historic legislation.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 furthers 
the vital local telecommunications competition goal by prohibiting 
States and local governments from erecting barriers to new entrants 
providing service. This is an excellent provision, but, because it is a 
general mandate, there may be creative attempts to get around it. At 
the very least, such attempts to skirt the law would result in lengthy 
litigation, which would slow investment and competition. It is for that 
reason that I would like to spell out in more detail the types of 
requirements that State and local governments should not be able to 
impose: A State or local government should not be able to require that 
any provider:
  Demonstrate that its provision of service would not harm the 
competitive position of any current or future providers of service, 
would be beneficial to consumers, or would not affect universal 
service;
  Show that its provision of service would not harm the network of any 
provider, other than 

[[Page H1179]]
agreeing to abide by uniform technical requirements;
  Agree to provide service in, or build out, all or any parts of a 
franchise territory;
  Show financial capabilities not relevant to the service to be 
provided and not required of other providers;
  Limit its offering of service until another provider obtains 
regulatory relief, that is, withhold offering a service until the 
incumbent provider receives pricing flexibility.
  I hope this list proves useful to State and local governments in 
their efforts to implement this new law and to the FCC in its oversight 
of this provision.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 414, 
noes 16, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 25]

                               AYES--414

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--16

     Abercrombie
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Evans
     Frank (MA)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Johnson (SD)
     Nadler
     Peterson (MN)
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Stark
     Volkmer
     Williams
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Filner
     Rose

                              {time}  1623

  Mr. MOAKLEY and Mr. YOUNG of Florida changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid of the table.

                          ____________________